Hewlett-Packard made a big move in that direction today, announcing a series of switches that support OpenFlow, open source software that makes routers and switches programmable and thus a lot more flexible.

The news gave me an opportunity to catch up with Bethany Mayer, HP’s senior vice president and general manager for networking. We talked about HP’s plans around SDN:

AllThingsD: Bethany, put simply, what is SDN all about, as HP sees it?

Mayer: The idea is that we’re trying to create more automation, less constraint, and have the network be more abstracted so that there are few manual processes in the data center. It’s meant to bring more simplification and flexibility to the data center. In all of these products we have enabled OpenFlow. We now have 40 platforms that are OpenFlow-enabled. And we have about 20 million ports out there in the marketplace today that are OpenFlow-ready.

How is the state of HP’s networking business, generally?

Backward-looking, we now have 13 quarters of year-over-year growth under our belt. So we’ve continued to grow the business. Our SDN strategy is getting a lot of interest in the industry. I just recently spoke at the Open Networking Summit. The amount of interest has been very high. We had about 60 customers in our SDN beta, and they’re really excited about the applications we’ve created. No one else has created a security application, a load-balancing application, so things have been very good.

And how do you see the competitive landscape? HP is a distant No. 2, but a solid N0. 2 to Cisco Systems. Do you see yourself taking business away from Cisco, or is it more complicated than that?

We’ve continued to take market share in the industry over the last several quarters, and we’ve also maintained our No. 1 position as an enterprise networking vendor in China.

And HP tends to play mostly in the enterprise networking space, but you don’t play in the carrier-class and telecom networking market where Cisco tends to dominate, correct?

That’s correct, however I would say that with this virtual services router that we just announced, that offers us some inroads in the service provider market, because there are new capabilities they are looking for, something called network services virtualization, where they are trying to virtualize functions like routing and switching, security and load balancing. The capabilities that we’re bringing to the table with this announcement makes them very interested. This allows them the ability to move toward virtualizing their networks, and avoid the amounts of money they pay for their expensive proprietary switches and routers. Our focus for disrupting the networking industry is via open standards and simplification. That’s generating strong interest from the service providers. They don’t want to spend the money on the more expensive switches and routers. The point is to help these customers break the proprietary lock, help them make their networks more agile, and meet the new needs of their networks.

The telecommunications giant has benefited from surging wireless revenue, as more of its customers switch over to smartphones. But AT&T has been falling further behind Verizon Wireless in wireless subscriber numbers, as the two biggest wireless players in the U.S. battle each other for new customers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

While the tale of a print magazine embedded in a troubled media company makes for much better reading, everyone loves a listicle. So, Time has once again put out its annual countdown of the 100 “most influential people in the world, from artists and leaders to pioneers, titans and icons.”

And, as usual, global techies represent big-time on the list, including:

* Tesla and SpaceX’s Elon Musk — about whom Virgin Group’s Richard Branson wrote, “It’s a paradox that Elon is working to improve our planet at the same time he’s building spacecraft to help us leave it.”

* Instagram co-founder and CEO Kevin Systrom, who gets inexplicably feted by entertainment bon vivant Ryan Seacrest (we are down with this anyway).

* Netflix content chief Ted Sarandos (yay for Ted, who is Mr. Nice Guy, especially for Hollywood).

* Ren Zhengfei, CEO of China’s telecom giant Huawei.

* Oh-Hyun Kwon, Samsung CEO, about whom former Apple CEO John Sculley wrote, “As Samsung builds a campus in Silicon Valley, all eyes will be on Kwon to see if the CEO with a PhD from Stanford can be as successful with software as he has been with hardware.”

* Music manager and Internet talent discoverer Scooter Braun.

* Minecraft developers, Markus Persson and Jens Bergensten, whom my sons revere (and therefore are deserving of kudos!).

* OkCupid founder Sam Yagan, who is now CEO of Match.com.

* Microsoft and Apple irritant David Einhorn, who is the only hedge fund investor dude I like.

* Deservedly ubiquitous Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, whose “Lean In” is a bestseller.

* Apple design guru Jony Ive, about whom Bono noted, “Jony Ive is himself classic Apple. Brushed steel, polished glass hardware, complicated software honed to simplicity.”

* Coursera co-founders Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller, who are among many in tech trying to change education.

* Chinese tech investor Kai-Fu Lee.

* Google Ideas guy Jared Cohen.

* Afghanistan entrepreneur Roya Mahboob, who gets praise from Sandberg.

* Kickstarter CEO Perry Chen, about whom “Veronica Mars” star (and user of the fundraising tool) Kristen Bell said, “There’s something so smart and magical about that idea — connecting consumers with creators and letting them vote with their own money.”

* And listicle Olympian and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, garnering a major feting from Google’s Eric Schmidt, who wrote: “Google was lucky to have her help us grow into what we became, and Yahoo is lucky to have her taking them someplace new.”

(Cover photo by Mark Seliger for Time)

According to a forecast from Analysys Mason, telecom revenue will increase just 1.7 percent annually through 2017, with growth in mobile offsetting a decline in fixed connections. Meanwhile, revenue will be flat or down in most parts of the world, with key emerging markets accounting for the bulk of growth.

Currently, around two-thirds of revenue comes from North America, Europe and developed parts of Asia. However, the biggest growth will come in emerging markets.

Emerging markets will grow an estimated 5.3 percent yearly through 2017, while North America will see a fractional gain, and revenue declines are expected in Europe and the developed parts of Asia.

Three countries in particular will account for 60 percent of all revenue growth in the forecast period: China (40 percent of all growth), India (12 percent) and Brazil (8 percent).

For our readers who are not inclined to constantly hit the refresh button, here’s a quick look back at the Top 10 stories that drove AllThingsD this week:

1. Disney Shuts Down LucasArts
2. Here’s Why You Hate Your Cable Company
3. AT&T: Oh, Wait … About That Samsung Galaxy S4 Pricing
4. Samsung Says Apple’s Patent Damages Could Still Exceed $1 Billion
5. HD Voice Will Start Coming to AT&T Later This Year
6. You Still Can’t Resell Your iTunes Songs, Court Rules
7. Elissa Murphy, One of Yahoo’s High-Profile Tech Execs, Heads to Go Daddy as CTO
8. Henry Blodget Is Quietly Planning a Stunning Return to Wall Street
9. What’s Dell’s Bidding Process Really About? (Clue: It’s Not About Fixing Dell)
10. Windows Phone Gaining a Toehold in Some Markets

For more of the week in review, you should follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

With that action, Mr. Dijkland’s text joined the tens of billions of messages that are processed every day from a fast-growing crowd of mobile messaging apps.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Peeved that Microsoft has ignored its repeated requests to register as an electronic communications operator, French telecommunications regulator Arcep on Tuesday asked the Paris public prosecutor to determine once and for all whether or not the IP telephony unit is ducking its legal obligations.

According to Arcep, the fact that Skype supports voice calls to both hardline and wireless numbers makes it a de facto telephone service, one that must comply with local regulations permitting emergency calls and the monitoring of voice traffic when legally required.

Skype, predictably, rejects that argument. “Skype is not a provider of electronic communications services under French law,” the company said in a statement. Of course, Skype’s opinion of what it is and isn’t is of little consequence here. Ultimately, regulators will determine whether or not the services Skype offers constitute a telephone company, and Arcep’s move today suggests that the interpretation may be evolving.

I had a short conversation with Chambers last night, shortly after the earnings report was released. Here are the highlights:

AllThingsD: John, you were just on CNBC a little while ago, talking about how some of your customers are seeing a slow start to 2013, but generally feeling positive. Your shares moved after-hours in reaction to that, and people tended to focus on that. Can you unpack what you meant?

Chambers: I talked about a lot of positive things, and I think sometimes people will take one element and focus on it. When you have record earnings and record revenues, and you’ve done that for eight quarters in a row, the key takeaway about the quarter has to be that our vision and strategy is working. Many times — not entirely — but many times, we’re out-executing the vast majority of our peers. The second element is not that Cisco is off to a slow start in 2013, it’s more that 2013 is off to a slow start economically in terms of what our customers are saying to us. I believe, based on what they are telling us and based on our order trends, that it appears to be, barring government mis-execution in a big way, I think we can handle a short-term pause. But, barring a big economic surprise, it’s just going to be a slowly improving year. My customers are saying it’s looking like a better year than they’ve seen in a couple years, and the trend is up and to the right, but it is coming off a slow base. So I think we’ll see relatively slow GDP growth in the U.S.

That seems to be the sentiment right now.

Yeah, most of my customers are saying they see a point and a half of GDP growth in the first half of the year, and unfortunately that means they’ll spend to that. On the other side, our enterprise and commercial accounts are showing two quarters in a row of really solid growth. And they’re usually a good indicator two to four quarters out.

So would you say you’re expecting something of an acceleration later in the year?

I would use a different phrase for it. I’d say cautious optimism. There are some very smart people who are very negative not just on Europe but on the U.S. So our eyes are wide open to the fact that we may be of the minority view. But we have the advantage of seeing our order patterns among our customers, and being able to talk to most of the government global business leaders around the world.

What’s working and what’s not for Cisco right now?

I think what’s working are the vision and the strategy of the role of the network, and beginning down the path of being the No. 1 IT player in the world. This quarter was another proof point of that, especially in the data center, but also in software. Secondly, what’s working is key technology trends, such as cloud and data center, mobility and video — all had very good quarters. What’s not working is that we’d like to see things growing faster on a global basis. Assuming we continue to be a reasonably good barometer of the global economy, we’d like to see these things growing a little faster.

How do you feel about the competitive landscape?

We love to compete, and we try to always compete with class. And we compete to win the market transitions. So let’s look at those. In the transition in the cloud and the data center, we’re challenging the incumbents that have been there for two decades. Let’s face it, servers are a commodity. And yet our servers get a dramatic premium, and they are tied very tightly to a switch. And we’re winning with a 65 percent growth rate in a market where our peers are flat or growing in low single digits. The second thing that is working is mobility. It was an Achilles’ heel about two or two and a half years ago. Now we’re the leader in most segments of mobility that have profits. So mobile edge, mobile backhaul, mobile packet edge, wireless LANs, small-cell, integrating it all together with wired capability. And collaboration tied to it, it really feels good to win there. The third thing would be in video. We’re making a pretty good transition from a set-top box where we’re making very little profit, and we’re starting to walk away from deals where people won’t pay for an architectural play; we just don’t bid on it. And, in spite of that, we’re up about 20 percent, mostly on software from NDS, so the market is going where we want it to go. It’s too early to say how far along we are in becoming the world’s No. 1 IT player, or the Internet of everything. I’d say a little bit of progress there, but it’s way too early in the ball game to say.

Synacor is a behind-the-scenes technology company that provides authentication services, Web-based TV solutions — and now Zynga games —  to 45 cable, satellite and telecom companies.

Starting next year, Synacor’s customers will be able to offer their subscribers access to games from their homepages. Additionally, those providers will be able to include Zynga’s in-game currency as part of their subscription offerings. In other words, they can now bundle together TV + telephone + Internet + FarmVille Cash.

Synacor’s customers include a variety of providers, such as Verizon, CenturyLink, Broadstripe, Charter and US Cable, and claims to reach 24 million households in the U.S.

Zynga has inked other distribution deals in the past, such as a rewards program with American Express that enables people to earn virtual currency when they spend money in the real world. This is the first TV-and-games mash-up for the social game company. It may take awhile before it becomes a meaningful business, if it ever does become meaningful, but at least it shows the company’s dedication to finding new subscribers, wherever they might be.

A lot of the details are still being hammered out, like how customers will navigate from an operator’s homescreen to a game. Customers may be redirected to Facebook, Zynga.com or another network, like Google+. Clearly, if the customers are already existing players, they will likely want to play on the platform of their choice. Customers will receive a discount code in order to redeem the currency inside the game.

It’s still not clear how much in-game currency customers will be offered, and, in theory, it could fluctuate based on the subscription package. A Zynga spokesperson declined to disclose terms of the deal.

“It’s like the poor kids fighting against the rich kids,” Mr. Son said recently about the coming showdown. “Sometimes, the poor kids have more guts to fight the uphill battle.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

In an 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions today — primarily devoted to announcing the savings Verizon had garnered as a result of contract negotiations with its unionized work force — the company said its wireless and wireline businesses had experienced an impact from the storm. It didn’t put a dollar amount on what it expects, but the fact that it is softening up the Street for a big one-time charge that will affect its results is telling. It next reports earnings in late January.

Last year, Verizon reported $250 million in combined one-time charges related to Hurricane Irene and a two-week strike that knocked five cents off its earnings per share in the third quarter of 2011. The impact from Sandy will no doubt be much bigger. Even so, Verizon shares rose by 15 cents or less, to $45.29, by mid morning Friday.

Here’s what Verizon said in its filing:

Hurricane Sandy

In addition, Verizon’s wireless and wireline businesses have been impacted by Hurricane Sandy through a large portion of the Northeast. Verizon is currently directing its resources toward significant remediation efforts to restore communications services to affected customers, which may take some time. It is not possible at this time to estimate the impact that the storm and the required remediation may have on Verizon’s operating results for the fourth quarter of 2012, but we expect that it could be significant.

A little more than a week after the House Intelligence Committee issued a stinging report that fanned the flames of official worry about Huawei and another company, ZTE, it emerged today that the White House ordered a separate review that found no evidence that equipment produced by either company had been used to spy for China. Reuters moved a story on the report a few hours ago.

Rather than spying, it turns out that Huawei’s gear suffers from the same kind of arguably unintended security vulnerabilities that occasionally crop up and that could in theory be exploited by hackers with the proper knowledge. The trick question — which is sort of an indicator of the multi-layered gray areas that make these questions so hard to answer — is whether or not someone put those vulnerabilities there on purpose.

What tends to happen in the cloak-and-dagger world is that multiple layers exist between the people who would want certain actions taken — poking around a sensitive network — and the people who actually do the work. Some freelance hackers in China — or practically any other country for that matter — just might, the theory goes, be working for China’s People’s Liberation Army but not even really know who’s paying them. And if you read enough spy novels you can probably imagine a bunch of other theoretical scenarios in which a vulnerability that’s there “by mistake” could be put to use by someone with a certain amount of plausible deniability.

The review was pretty detailed and was conducted by asking questions of more than 1,000 people in the telecom industry, people who would have noticed any serious and overt funny business going on with the equipment.

So now two government reviews have expressed reservations about Huawei, but neither has been able to say exactly what makes them so uneasy.

I’ve already expressed my theory: That it’s the U.S. government’s own history in this area and its direct knowledge of what can be done. Examples include malware like Stuxnet, Flame and Gauss, to name but a few.

Huawei maintains that it would never allow its equipment to be misused for the benefit of a third party. And even though it is now the world’s largest manufacturer of telecom equipment, its hopes to expand more widely into the U.S. market just got incrementally more complicated.

According to multiple reports I have received, some employees of OnLive have been walking out of their Palo Alto, Calif. offices over the last few hours laden with boxes.

And some, no surprise, are headed to a nearby bar — The Patio — presumably to drown their sorrows.

The departures from the online cloud-gaming service came after a meeting this morning in which its top execs told staff that it would be letting almost the entire staff go, but without a lot of explanation of what that meant.

While founder and CEO Steve Perlman runs a number of other digital efforts — via his own Rearden Labs — at its Silicon Valley HQ, sources said only fraction of staffers will be left to keep the servers running until a resolution for the assets is found. Kotaku reported that OnLive would be filing an “alternative to bankruptcy called an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, or ABC, in the state of California.”

It is not clear who actually owns the pricey technology and patents for OnLive, which has raised $56 million in funding from investors such as Maverick Capital, Time Warner and HTC. HTC, the Taiwanese telecom giant, invested $40 million of the total in early 2011.

That’s a lot of dough, so it is not clear what has happened or if Perlman is poised to sell off the entity.

Sony recently bought one of OnLive’s rivals in the space — Gaikai — for $380 million to turbocharge its cloud-gaming service efforts.

One thing is entirely clear: While egregiously denying it was doing so, the gaming and virtual desktop software start-up is effectively shutting down OnLive as it has been previously run.

Earlier today, an OnLive spokesperson denied the obvious situation.

“We don’t respond to rumors, but the service is not shutting down,” OnLive said, while also bizarrely flacking their games.

Last week, I heard a rumor of just this thing happening and asked a spokesperson last Friday via email: “I hear via very good sources it is closing down or cutting back.”

This was the disingenuous response: “The latest rumors have been around acquisitions — this is a new one! Not the case, but officially we never comment on rumors.”

No need for comment, as you can see from the photo above and also here that was just sent to me.

OnLive launched in 2010 as a Web portal for streaming games, which it demoed here, from the D: All Things Digital conference in 2010.

As Lauren Goode wrote earlier: “In addition to its cloud-based gaming platform, which runs on PCs, tablets and now Google TV products, OnLive also offers [Microsoft] Office-based, virtual desktop software for [Apple] iPads and [Google] Android tablets, which got the Palo-Alto-based start up in some hot water with Microsoft earlier this year.”

Mashable first reported on the possible layoffs earlier. Let’s upgrade that to actual.

The move will help Dish Network compete more directly with cable and telecom operators that offer broadband, including in packages bundled with television service.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The plans come about a month after rival Verizon Wireless, a joint venture of Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC, unveiled similar plans. The plans from both telecom giants shifts the focus to customers’ data usage and diminishes the role of voice minutes and texts, once the basis for most wireless bills.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

That’s the impression that analysts at the research house IHS iSuppli got when they did just that: They took a Nexus 7 apart in order to see what components are inside, and to estimate what each of them costs. The early verdict, shared exclusively with AllThingsD, is that the low-end eight gigabyte model of the Nexus 7, which sells for $199, costs $151.75 to build.

The higher-end 16GB model, which sells for $249, costs $159.25, the difference being the cost of the memory chips inside.

Andrew Rassweiler, who leads the teardown team at IHS iSuppli, reckons that Google will break even on the 8GB model, and will turn a tidy profit on the 16GB model. “Like Apple, Google realizes it can boost its profit margin by offering more memory at a stair-step price point. It’s getting $50 more at retail for only $7.50 more in hardware cost, which sends $42.50 per unit straight to the bottom line.”

The IHS iSuppli cost estimate is about $30 lower than an early estimate put out last month by another research firm, UBM TechInsights. However UBM’s estimate was made without having first obtained the hardware for analysis.

The Nexus 7 is similar to Amazon’s Kindle Fire tablet in many respects, but it has some better features. For one thing, the Nexus has the Nvidia-made Tegra 3 processor as its main computing engine. It’s a four-core chip, meaning it has four main processing brains. The Kindle Fire has a two-core OMAP 4430 processor from Texas Instruments. TI, however, supplied two chips for the Nexus 7, one a power-management chip, the other a low-voltage transmitter.

But the Nexus 7, manufactured by Asus for Google, also has a better display, with a resolution of 1,280 pixels high by 800 pixels wide, versus 1,024 by 600 for the Kindle Fire. Rassweiler said the display uses a technology known as in-plane switching, and added $38 to the hardware cost of the Nexus 7, versus $35 for the display in the Kindle Fire, Rassweiler said.

The Nexus also has a camera that added $2.50 in cost to the Nexus, and which the Kindle Fire lacks. The Nexus also has a chip from NXP that supports near field communications (NFC), a close-range wireless technology that’s intended for wireless commerce transactions. Broadcom supplied GPS receiver chips to support mapping functions.

One other part caught Rassweiler’s attention: A gyroscope and accelerometer from InvenSense. While it’s common to see InvenSense gyroscopes, it’s rare to see it combined with into the same chip with the accelerometer. Both are used to determine position and movement of the device. The only other combined gyro-accelerometer seen before, Rassweiler said, was seen in Samsung’s Galaxy S III smartphone, and was made by the European chipmaker STMicroelectronics.

All told, IHS iSuppli figures that the Nexus 7 costs about $18 more to make than the Kindle Fire. But that’s likely to change soon. A New Kindle Fire with a better display arrives this fall.

Image: Courtesy IHS iSuppli

Gartner’s last forecast for the year called for global spending on IT to hit $3.5 trillion. Today it has added an extra $100 billion to that estimate, and nudged its official estimate for the year upward to $3.6 trillion.

Leading the pack of the the market segments that are expected to grow is investment in public cloud services, expected to grow by about $109 billion, which is a lot faster than the $91 billion previously thought. By 2016, Gartner reckons, spending on public cloud services will more or less double again, to north of $200 billion.

Most IT spending will be on moving various business processes to vendors, some of them cloud software players, into the cloud, where they can be sold on a subscription basis, or “as-a-service.” It’s followed closely by “infrastructure-as-a-service,” which is growing almost as fast.

Services generally will amount to a $864 billion worth of spending this year, amounting to a 2.3 percent increase over last year. Ever-more-complex environments that combine stuff that runs in the cloud and on-premise are boosting demand for IT consulting services.

That the marketplace is still growing — and not shrinking — is in line with results from prior surveys by other companies, but it’s also welcome news, given the slow pace of growth in the U.S., the weakness of the Euro Zone as that region’s countries struggle with their ongoing sovereign debt crisis, and the slower rate of growth in China. Though it’s important to remember that the last time Gartner released this figure, in January, it was when it revised it downward from $3.8 trillion. If that’s what a step in the right direction looks like, then I guess I’ll take it.

Atlanta-based Hughes provides auto-based technology and services such as online media, remote vehicle diagnostics and even medical-related services. For Verizon, the deal, expected to close in the third quarter, comes as the carrier will likely expand its data plans to cover more products.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Code Advisors is getting a $25 million investment from financial services giant JPMorgan Chase for a minority stake in the Silicon Valley-based boutique investment bank and advisory firm.

The influx of cash will allow Code to grow quicker, said Quincy Smith, one of the firm’s founders, which also include Michael Marquez and Fred Davis.

The non-exclusive deal, the two firms said, is the natural extension of a longer-term relationship that has been developing for a while.

“To the extent that the money means we are getting even closer together, that’s great,” said Smith in an interview earlier today. “This solidifies a partnership that has existed for some time.”

Plus, it presumably also gives each what the other cannot offer clients. Usually a big bank might try to kill or buy a firm like Code, so this move is unique.

“We are growing our business and getting access to next-generation entrepreneurs that Code knows well,” added Kurt Simon, co-head of Technology, Media and Telecom Banking at J.P. Morgan. “And it’s a sign of continued investment in our important West Coast businesses.”

Indeed, J.P. Morgan has been competing with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley for a higher profile in Silicon Valley. It recently was selected with the pair as one of the lead bankers in the upcoming Facebook IPO. It has also worked recently with LinkedIn, Skype and Pandora.

Code has taken on smaller deals with a range of hot start-ups and entrepreneurs, which was one of the attractions for J.P. Morgan. That includes representing Spotify and LivingSocial, and making investments in Path and Flipboard.

“For J.P. Morgan, it’s like making an limited partner investment in another venture firm,” said Smith. “And for us, we can offer a lot more services to our clients as they grow.”

As part of the deal, Jes Staley, CEO of J.P. Morgan’s investment bank and a member of the firm’s operating committee, will become a non-voting observer on Code’s board.

Here’s the full press release on the deal:

CODE ADVISORS ANNOUNCES A $25 MILLION INVESTMENT FROM JPMORGAN CHASE

San Francisco May 3, 2012 — Code Advisors announced today that JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) has agreed to make a $25 million minority investment. Jes Staley, CEO of J.P. Morgan’s Investment Bank and a member of the firm’s Operating Committee, will also act as a non-voting observer at Code’s Advisory and Investor Board meetings.

“We are thrilled that JPMorgan Chase has decided to invest in Code Advisors,” said co-founder Quincy Smith. “This transaction demonstrates how together we might energetically adjust to serve the new needs of entrepreneurs and companies. The chance to work more closely with Jes and his team gives us awesome global and experienced perspective.”

J.P. Morgan’s investment and relationship will allow Code to accelerate its growth opportunities and allow each team to offer complementary services to their respective and shared clients.

“Identifying and supporting great ideas early in their development is particularly important in the technology space,” said Staley. “Code continues to uniquely identify next generation companies, and together we are excited to help those entrepreneurs grow and expand their businesses.”

Mr. Sellenriek needed the plows for something he has done very little of since the telecom bubble burst and wiped out $2 trillion in stock market wealth more than 10 years ago: laying miles of new fiber-optic cable. After years of licking its wounds, and with much of the fiber-optic cable capacity in the ground still unused, the telecom industry is going on another building spree.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

If debates rage about the meaning of the past year in the Middle East, one would not sense much doubt among over 1,000 young regional entrepreneurs and early stage investors gathered here in Beirut. Their message is clear: There is no turning back, and the demographically young, wired, connected new generation in this region plan to take business opportunities into their own hands.

ArabNet Digital Summit is the brainchild of Yale MBA and Lebanese entrepreneur Omar Christidis. His vision has remained throughout to create a hub of shared ideas, experiences and connections among the nascent but rapidly growing start-up communities throughout the Middle East. Innovators from 22 countries are networking, competing in start-up competitions and participating in sessions familiar to any entrepreneur in the United States — e-commerce, big data, mobile, the cloud and social networks — but with sensitivity to local and regional opportunities as yet untapped.

Saad Khan, one of the few American VCs here, is a young veteran of Silicon Valley — having been a part of one of the world’s first incubators at Garage.com (which launched Pandora) and now at CMEA Ventures (where he sits on Blekko’s board). He has travelled extensively throughout the region over the last two years, and he believes that something pivotal is happening in the Middle East. “This is not about looking for ways to transport Silicon Valley here,” he notes, “MENA is a different market. Building connections with tech smart people in the Valley is great — shared, reciprocal learning both ways can be more powerful. Mobile is on fire in this region, everyone has a cellphone and smartphone penetration is deploying rapidly as pricing has dropped. Look for mobile innovation here to come from MENA, even leap-frogging the US.” He adds that some of best innovations in the cloud computing and ad analytics (like Cloudera, Revenue Science, AdMob and Bre.ad) are coming from Arabs and Arab Americans connected to the States and globally.

Moderator Alex Tohme, entrepreneur and Digital Strategist for Ogilvy One in Dubai, argues that while she prefers to run a company with the team under one roof, technology facilitates connections among skills around the region. “My ideal start-up would have tech engineers from Jordan, creatives from Egypt and have Lebanese sell it,” Alex Tohme notes. “ArabNet is great, as we’ve all connected regularly online over the last year and can meet here in real life. Talent is in many places, and many ‘hubs’ will spring up and connect with each other.”

Many of the more successful start-ups at ArabNet are regionalizing/arabizing ideas that have worked elsewhere in English. In fact, some of the leading competitors at the start-up demo competition would be familiar to the western world. Cinemoz announced significant business development partnerships with the best in Arabic TV and movie content, creating a Hulu for the region. ReserveOut is a fast-growing reservation-booking and backend for restaurants and spas similar to OpenTable. Arab Rooms allows business travelers in Saudi and beyond to find cheap, clean and convenient rooms somewhere between a Hotels.com and an AirBnB.

Habib Haddad is a Lebanese entrepreneur who created the first Arabic translation search engine, Yamli, and has created wamda.com in Beirut as the cornerstone of an entrepreneurial ecosystem of breaking information, education, research and angel investing in the region. He believes that such “copycats” are a great thing. “The Middle East and Arabic market is huge, has perfect demographics and has hunger for services for them on their terms and in their language. As success breeds success, more innovation will follow.”

Panelists and participants concur universally that the mere act of creating content and services in Arabic offers significant opportunity. Surveys have shown that over three quarters of Internet users in the region would prefer content in the Arab language, yet a tiny fraction of content online is currently in Arabic. Barry Newstead, Chief Global Development Officer for Wikimedia Foundation, noted in his talk here that on Wikipedia there are over 22 million individual articles in 280 languages. Only 100,000 are in Arabic. Denmark alone has over 200,000.

Rob Kniaz, General Partner of Hoxton Ventures out of London, who specializes in early investments in emerging markets, told me that Arabizing the web not only creates services to large markets who wish to have them in their own languages, but also opens up new, now-dormant business opportunities. “Local, Arabic advertisers have nowhere to go, so aggregate dollars are small and ad CPMs can be a few cents. Think of the pent-up demand over time as this is addressed by more Arabic content,” he notes.

Demo Competition winner May Habib founded Quordoba first as a B2B platform for businesses to outsource translation needs online, creating a network of over 400 vetted translators, many with industry expertise, to turn around documents in a matter of hours. But rapid demand is now also coming from English consumer media companies looking to reach Arabic audiences — and not only book publishers, but authors themselves, want them to both translate and distribute their books digitally and offline in the Middle East.

There is plenty of grumbling about infrastructure issues at this gathering — each country with its own challenges of logistics, delivery and regulation. But there is a special place of frustration among attendees over mobile broadband quality and cost. During a panel with executives from some of the region’s telecom giants, many participants drilled into the quality of services, the scaleability of capabilities as more smart phones come on board, and the access charges that are high by any global standards. The Twitter feed of #ArabNetME retweeted themes like, “Only Skype matters” while the executives also described their hopes for expansions into 4G and beyond.

But many entrepreneurs find opportunity in infrastructure weakness. Rasha Khouri, Lebanese Palestinian founder of diaboutique.com and dia-style.com — the largest growing fashion and e-commerce website that allows global access to some of the most innovative and hard to find fashion brands — noted: “I’m very impressed with the number of start-ups here trying to solve issues we face infrastructurally. More efficient online banking, mobile charging, billing, teaching advanced computer skills. Some of these aren’t necessarily ‘innovation’ as in ‘new technology’ — but critical for innovation to flourish.”

Jordanian entrepreneur and competition finalist Fouad Jeryes could not agree more. He co-founded Codely as the first fully online education platform for schools to teach specific programming and tech skills to high-school age kids, offering supplemental but often unique educational opportunities. “We surveyed kids and asked them what computing skills were all about and most said ‘Facebook,’ or ‘a way to play games’ or ‘secretarial skills.’ Our programs not only teach skills but create awareness of whole new worlds they really never have understood existed for them. We are lighting a fire in kids minds to make this understanding real. I believe we will help create the next generation of entrepreneurs in the Middle East, and eventually completely globally.”

Regional venture capital — from the Arab world and Turkey — is hovering closely over the ArabNet attendees. Egyptian VCs Sawari Ventures and Amman incubator Oasis 500, some of the most active regional investors with nearly 50 investments last year, split their time equally here with portfolio companies and looking for new investments. Middle East Ventures announced five new investments from the stage, including two follow-ons in music, job discovery, gaming and mobile payments. Noted Oasis 500′s Salwa Katkhuda, “I came with good expectations to be about the same as last year. But so much more is going on now in the region in terms of start-ups funded, a few success stories, more VC funds and so on.”

Will western investors be far behind? Saad Khan notes with conviction: “The answer to what will happen in five years is in the hands of the people in this room, period. And wins tend to beget wins.” He likes what he saw at ArabNet.

Christopher M. Schroeder @cmschroed is a U.S. Internet entrepreneur and angel investor. His most recent company, the social and content online health platform healthcentral.com, was acquired in December 2011. He has been active in following entrepreneurship in emerging markets, especially in the Middle East, and has written for AllThingsD on these experiences.

We are now posting the full videos from the recent AsiaD conference, which took place in Hong Kong in October.

We’re following the schedule of the actual event. Up now: John Roese, head of Huawei’s North American R&D team.

While not as well known as others, the Chinese company is the world’s second-largest maker of telecommunications and networking gear. You might hear more about it soon, though, since Huawei aims to increase its annual revenue to more than $100 billion per year within the next decade, by expanding its business beyond communications service providers.

Roese is one of the execs charged with making it so by expanding in the U.S. and focusing on research.

Here’s his onstage interview with Ina Fried:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111121/huaweis-john-roese-on-the-telecom-giant-that-wants-to-roar-the-full-asiad-interview-video/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111104/google-ponders-pay-tv-business/ http://allthingsd.com/20111104/google-ponders-pay-tv-business/#comments Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:05:07 +0000 Sam Schechner and Amir Efrati http://allthingsd.com/?p=140497 Internet giant Google Inc. is considering a plan to offer paid cable-TV services to consumers, a move that could unleash a new wave of competition within the traditional TV business.

Google has looked at ways to expand a previously announced project to build a high-speed Internet service in Kansas City, Mo., and Kansas City, Kan., adding video and phone service in a mirror of offerings from cable and telecom companies, according to people briefed on its plans. As a result, Google has discussed distributing major TV channels from companies like Walt Disney Co., Time Warner Inc. and Discovery Communications Inc. as part of the video service, though the discussions were exploratory and no final decisions have been made.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111104/google-ponders-pay-tv-business/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111027/chinese-tech-giant-aids-iran/ http://allthingsd.com/20111027/chinese-tech-giant-aids-iran/#comments Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:30:01 +0000 Steve Stecklow, Farnaz Fassihi and Loretta Chao http://allthingsd.com/?p=137204 When Western companies pulled back from Iran after the government’s bloody crackdown on its citizens two years ago, a Chinese telecom giant filled the vacuum.

Huawei Technologies Co. now dominates Iran’s government-controlled mobile-phone industry. In doing so, it plays a role in enabling Iran’s state security network.

Huawei recently signed a contract to install equipment for a system at Iran’s largest mobile-phone operator that allows police to track people based on the locations of their cellphones, according to interviews with telecom employees both in Iran and abroad, and corporate bidding documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. It also has provided support for similar services at Iran’s second-largest mobile-phone provider. Huawei notes that nearly all countries require police access to cell networks, including the U.S.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111027/chinese-tech-giant-aids-iran/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111020/huaweis-john-roese-live-at-asiad/ http://allthingsd.com/20111020/huaweis-john-roese-live-at-asiad/#comments Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:30:34 +0000 John Paczkowski http://allthingsd.com/?p=133901 With $29 billion in revenues in 2010, Huawei is the world’s second-largest maker of telecommunications and networking gear. But second largest and second best isn’t good enough for the Chinese company, which aims to increase its annual revenues to more than $100 billion per year within the next 10 years by expanding its business beyond communications service providers. John Roese, head of Huawei’s North American R&D team, is one of the guys charged with making that happen. How? By expanding its presence in the United States and hitting the sweet spot between the increasingly overlapping telecom, enterprise and consumer markets.

11:39 am: A few introductory remarks, and Ina Fried welcomes Roese to the AsiaD stage.

Ina Fried: Hi again, everyone. I’m very excited that our next speaker is John Roese of Huawei. Huawei, for those of you who don’t know — I’m sure everyone in this room does — is, you know, a huge Chinese networking giant involved in all kinds of areas, from making devices, making the networks that devices run on, and has quietly, over the last many years, amassed just a huge talent pool, not just here in Asia, but also in the United States. And John Roese oversees the U.S. R&D arm, which I actually didn’t realize is composed of as many thousands of engineers as it is. John also has an interesting career as CEO of Nortel, and several other technology companies before that. So, without further ado, John Roese.

Maybe, I think, John, the most helpful thing would be to talk first a little bit just about Huawei and what are the businesses it’s in.

John Roese: Most importantly, everybody knows that Huawei is a telecom company selling things to carriers. But this year the company has gone through a complete transformation to become an ICT company, and it’s based on the premise that in the future, most problems will not be solved purely by the consumer, the carrier, or the enterprise ecosystem. You actually have to combine the technologies from them to solve problems.

And so while we had a big carrier business and continue to be currently the second-largest carrier company in the world, in terms of equipment suppliers we quietly have emerged as a consumer company with a multibillion dollar consumer company in the handset business, and now have entered the market as an enterprise player with … about $4 billion in enterprise sales, which makes us probably the second or third largest in the world.

So the company is redefining itself on a premise that the future is not about distinct silos of technology, but how you put them together in a coherent way to actually solve more complex problems in this next generation of ICT.

Ina Fried: So everything’s all related, but let’s break it into silos for a second. What are the different products you guys make? You have networking — both, I think, wired and wireless — although carriers are certainly what you’re best known for. You guys make phones and tablets which have been less in the U.S. but starting to show up first, I think, through smaller carriers and now through some of the major carriers. What other kinds of products do you make?

John Roese: To put it into context, my role in the U.S., I’m responsible for advanced technology across all of the business lines. And I kind of joke with people that, in just my organization, you can go from dealing with people developing photovoltaic technology, to cloud technology, to next-generation cellular technology, to enterprise switches and routers, to core optical networks, to handsets and tablets and smartphones. It’s really the entire spectrum, and it’s probably one of the broadest toolkits of any company in the industry, in terms of providing the communication infrastructure for — everything. It’s a strange answer, but if there’s a way to communicate, there is probably Huawei technology involved in that communication ecosystem.

Ina Fried: And let’s talk about the organization you oversee. First of all, explain to people the scale. Because I certainly didn’t have an appreciation for just how many people Huawei had in the U.S. And talk about what they’re doing.

John Roese: So, obviously, over the years Huawei has gone from out-executing a lot of people in front of us to now out-innovating and being the leader in many segments. We’re now the market share leader and the innovation leader. And as part of that, we realized we had to operate globally. We had to create a global ecosystem of innovation. The biggest change in that was this conscious decision to expand our innovation organization worldwide.

So my charter was to come in and essentially scale the North American organization from a few hundred people to well over a thousand people now, that are all chief scientists, chief technology officers. The average seniority in my organization, from an engineering perspective, is probably 25 to 30 years in the industry, these deep, deep experts that, quite frankly, have created many of the industries that we’re dealing with, in terms of technology. So that thousand-plus people that’s emerged over the last year is the tip of an arrow that, behind it, is today approaching almost 60,000 engineers around the world, many of them in India and Europe, and a huge portion of them in Shenzhen, Beijing and other provinces in China.

Ina Fried: So, 60,000 engineers — some huge percentage of the company’s overall workforce — are actually engineers.

John Roese: Absolutely. As a technical guy, and having been an executive of many companies, one of the things that attracted me to Huawei was it’s still a very technical company. Almost 50 percent of the company is R&D. There are very few companies that have this kind of emphasis on the development of technology, as opposed to other aspects of the business.

Ina Fried: And how did you build this workforce in the U.S.? You’re in many sites in the U.S. and Canada; um, from what I recall, you’ve basically cherry-picked some of the companies on the downturn and grew that way.

John Roese: I answered that question to some folks in the U.S. government; they asked the same question about how, isn’t it challenging to attract people? It was kind of an interesting conversation. I answered it, “One person at a time.” We candidly looked at where innovation was happening and tried to make sure that we had a presence close by, so we could tap into those ecosystems if you want to do advanced terminals, smartphones, tablets. A great place to do that is San Diego.

So we opened a big facility in San Diego. If you want to do cellular wireless — Chicago; Ottawa; Bridgewater, N.J. — great places to do that. Our biggest sites are actually in Santa Clara, where you have this — ecosystem where you can almost find any technology within about three miles of our facility. So it was a very conscious decision to say that there are clusters of intellect within the North American market, and instead of trying to assume that you can bring them to you, it was better for us to go to them and attract them into the organization.

Ina Fried: And I understand that you guys — your chief recruiter — you owe a big debt to Larry Ellison?

John Roese: Well, we actually kind of find it very useful when there’s mergers and acquisitions and consolidations. So when Sun and Oracle combined, we found a lot of people at Sun that basically wanted to rethink where they wanted to work. Sun is a fantastically innovative company, as is Oracle, but the cultures are different. So it was a great boon to us that we were able to be down the street, and be growing very rapidly, and have this idea where people could take their ideas and turn it into actual reality. By the way, we did the same thing up at Ottawa. When Nortel kind of disappeared, one of the things that happened very quickly, en masse, some of the top technical experts in Nortel just kind of walked across the street to a new facility while they opened, and joined the company.

Ina Fried: And that’s how you came to the company, right?

John Roese: Well, I was a little bit later than that. Actually, that team, most of them who worked for me came into Huawei, and then I was kind of off doing other things, and then as we decided to scale it, I guess they gave me a good reference and they say, “Well you should go attract this guy because we liked working for him, he built a good innovation culture and maybe can help you take it to the next level.”

Ina Fried: And talk about that: What was your thinking, how well did you know Huawei when they first approached you? I mean, obviously, some of your former workers were there. What were your concerns? What excited you about it?

John Roese: Well, I think most people, to quote my former neighbor up in Ottawa, the mayor of Ottawa — Larry O’Brien, at the time — he opened the R&D facility for us up there, and his comment was, “Huawei is the largest company I’ve never heard of.” And that was very common in our engagements. And for me personally, I knew about Huawei, I had competed with them, I even tested their technology to prove whether or not it worked and whether it was a real threat, and learned very quickly it was a very real threat to companies like Nortel. But for me personally, I had kind of checked out of the industry after Nortel. I said, four Fortune 500 CTO roles, it’s time to go do something else, I’ll go to that Ph.D. in cultural anthropology.

But then I started talking to Huawei. I saw some of my best and brightest people — people that were Nortel fellows — come into the company, and as I got talking to them, when I came over to SenJen, when I met with the management team, when I met with the folks that were running the company, what I realized is, this is one of those companies that actually truly values technology; understands that you have to invest heavily into it and was genuinely excited about, not what happened yesterday, but what was going to go in the future. For me, as a technologist — every technologist, any engineer — the most valuable thing you can do is take an idea and turn it into reality. It’s not about making money, it’s not about prestige, it’s about turning your ideas into reality. When I saw this engine here, and this desire to innovate into the future, it was just a complete no-brainer to join.

Ina Fried: Now, you talked about building your organization one person at a time, and part of the reason why Huawei has built its organization in the U.S. one person at a time is because the U.S. government won’t let you acquire just about anyone. You guys have tried a couple times. How challenging is that, in a technology industry that is largely built by acquisition? You came from Broadcom; they gobble up a dozen companies a year.

John Roese: No one will accuse government policy of preceding the technical ecosystems and industries. It usually is a couple generations behind. So the current status of our relationship with the U.S. government is really that we’re a bit out of sync. In most of the industries that we compete in right now, the industries have been highly globalized. If you wanted to build a wireless network today in the U.S., your choice of vendors would be, let’s see, a Swedish vendor, a Finnish vendor, a French vendor and two Chinese vendors. Those are the tier-ones. There’s no North American vendor that can build that for you. The last one was Nortel; it’s not there anymore.

So part of our challenge is educating the U.S. government, educating the politicians. And not just the U.S. — around the world — that we’re in a highly globalized environment, the innovation has shifted, the structure of the industry has shifted and there needs to be a rethinking of how public policy and governmental policy relates to understanding a technology and its application and networks.

Today we build the networks for 45 of the top 50 operators in the world. The remaining five, a chunk of them, happen to be in the U.S. And so we’re very patient. Candidly, we’re now engaging very heavily, we’re dispelling myths on a regular basis, and it does make my life a lot more difficult. In fact, some of the U.S. government people made that comment. They said, “We applaud what you’re doing because you’re hiring lots of people in the U.S.” And we’re exporting $6 billion of goods and services into our global supply chain out of the U.S., we’re a great corporate citizen. But we kind of have to get in sync between the public policy and the actual reality of the industry.

Ina Fried: And what do you think it is? Because, I mean, you mention all of your competitors are global, non-U.S. based companies, is it xenophobia, what is really fueling this fear, and are any of the concerns legitimate or are they all fear-based?

John Roese: Well, I think I would say none of the concerns are legitimate in the reality, but perception is sometimes reality in people’s minds. So the punch line is, some people still think the industry that we exist in is the Bell Labs and the Lucents of the past. So, again, we do have to educate them about this future. The second is an unknown. My comment about Larry O’Brien — I mean, the biggest company he’s never heard of. Well, if I went and polled people in Washington, every senator and congressman, and asked them, “Do you even know how to pronounce Huawei?” — the answer would be, probably not. So we have to engage.

There’s an interesting thing: It’s a $30 billion company; our definition of an emerging market is the United States. So when a U.S. company comes into China, there’s a big educational process to kind of convince people that the company is legitimate, it can provide goo technology, it can be a good partner. And so it’s really just a systematic process of getting them to understand the reality. It doesn’t hurt now that we have a highly globalized workforce, that we have a big presence in the U.S., that we’re not in front of them and dialoging and being present. But more important, the thing that will ultimately overcome this is innovation. There is — you can prevent or avoid certain companies, until the technology they develop is so far superior to what you have at your disposal currently, that it creates a competitive disadvantage. And we believe, given our investment in innovation, that we are almost at that point. In many places ,we are clearly out innovating our competitors, and it just is sound public policy to let the carrier infrastructure of the United States — or the terminal industry or the enterprise industry– use the best technology to solve the best problem, because the correlation between global development, economic advancement, user experience, is entirely tied to using the best technology.

If I told you you couldn’t use any state-of-the-art tablet because I didn’t like the country of origin, and you had to go back to using a typewriter, would you do it? Of course not. We’re not quite there yet, but I think that will occur.

Ina Fried: So I want to turn to one of the topics that’s near and dear to my heart — and certainly to much of the audience — which is this mobile revolution. You guys are playing in that in several areas. You’re building, as you mentioned, the gear that a lot of these networks run on. Perhaps not the ones that I get to use in the States, but a lot of the other networks that I use when I travel, as well as, increasingly, some of the devices. And one of the areas that Huawei and ZTE and a number of Asian companies are making huge influences, democratizing these smartphones. Can you talk about the world you guys see, with smartphones everywhere on the planet?

John Roese: Absolutely. We’ve been through this before. A long time ago, Huawei decided that cellular technology — mobility — should be everywhere. And at that time, most of the big players said it wasn’t cost effective to build cellular networks that could be deployed in sub-Saharan Africa or in the developing world. Huawei was one of the few companies that said, “No, no, no — we need to figure out how to do this.” The result was skipping of generations, massive penetration, and today we have a couple billion people sitting on our networks, which is a good step.

Now we’re in a different phase. The different phase is now that you have these mobile networks, there is still a bit of a have-and-have-not world, and that is the smartphone versus the feature phone. I think the day before yesterday somebody mentioned, “Would it be great if there was $100 smartphone, or something better than that”? Well, there is, we build them. In fact, in the U.S. right now, you could go purchase — there are commercials on television from some of the tier-two operators. They’re our customers that essentially are describing $29 Android smartphones, Huawei-branded, no contract, no commitment.

Ina Fried: Now, does that mean you’re building a phone that costs less than $29 to make?

John Roese: Well, the economics are slightly different and more complex, but clearly they’re in that strata of the sub-$100 smart phone. The advantage of that is, once you get rid of this concept of feature phone/smartphone, that everybody has a mobile broadband device, everybody has a media-capable device — think about the capability that can unlock. I mean, I think Vice President Gore mentioned this concept of five billion people on mobile networks, and less than one billion on smartphones. Well, as soon as everybody is on smartphones, every interesting piece of technology you saw here over the last couple of days is contingent on having an interface that can actually do media, can do data, can be fully interactive. There is a huge opportunity, and the democratization of smartphones — which is clearly our message — we are absolutely trying to make sure that wherever there is a mobile user, they are a fully featured mobile user. That has a huge, profound impact; not just on the mobile networks and the devices, but all of these very interesting, over-the-top applications, cloud services and other things that are contingent on a better terminal and a better mobile experience.

Ina Fried: That growth you mentioned is also contingent, of course, on having networks that can handle that capacity; having enough spectrum. How much time does your organization spend looking at solutions? It’s great to say, wouldn’t it be great if the whole world has smartphones. I think we’d have a problem if any country went to 100% penetration. Data networks are struggling today. How much of your time is spent looking at that issue, and what are some of the things you guys are looking at?

John Roese: A huge portion. I mean, the good news is, I did a calculation a couple of years ago to say, how well have we executed as an industry in improving the bandwidth efficiency of networks — and this was wireline networks. But over a 20-year period, we had improved the cost-per-bit ratio by 22 million to one. That’s a pretty good ratio, if you will. We are very good, as an industry, at figuring out ways to increase the available bandwidth. Now the challenge is, it gets a lot harder when you have to deal with laws of physics, when you deal with things like Shannon’s Law and channel bandwidth. And so we are spending a huge amount of time. Given the composition of my organizations and the people in the organizations I run, they’re all advanced technologists and they’re the place where we are exploring not just how to make it more spectrally efficient, but how do we architect the cellular network. Instead of having these big monster cell sites all over the place, move to heterogeneous networks that have multiple tiers and multiple devices and ways to access, different kinds of networks to interface with, spread the spectrum over multiple spectrum channels.

At the same time, we go and lobby very heavily to get the digital dividend, free up spectrum, increase spectrum. That’s a very precious commodity. But more importantly, think about ways to use that spectrum efficiently. Now, most people don’t understand that a lot of the inefficiency in the network is based on the way it’s designed, and the fact that things like the modulation rate degrades as you move away from the cell site. If you can fix that, then the efficient use of spectrum can improve dramatically. Those are the kinds of things that we keep working on.

I actually have a very high degree of confidence that, contrary to public belief, we’re going to run out of capacity on the cellular networks. I think our industry is actually quite good at figuring out ways, creative ways, of improving that cost per bit of the available spectrum or the available capacity of the network. Occasionally we hit a wall, but usually we figure out a way around it. We innovate, we come up with a new approach and we continue to provide that kind of foundational attribute, which is capacity for people to connect.

Ina Fried: I want to get to questions in just a second, so definitely be thinking of them. But since a lot of people don’t know Huawei, and don’t know what you guys do, take us through the labs. What are some of the coolest projects that you can talk about, that you guys are working on? What are the things that you could tell your cousin, and they’d be like, “Wow?”

John Roese: Yeah, absolutely. So, one of the most interesting ones that I’m really excited about is cloud. So everybody knows the term “cloud”; the problem is, it’s kind of cloudy — we don’t actually know what it really defines. But right now, there’s kind of two schools of thought about cloud. There’s this idea that cloud is just a virtualized data center, and it doesn’t really change much; it just makes things slightly more efficient. And then there’s this very disruptive model that people like Amazon and Google have been focused on, which is, let’s just rethink things like storage and compute and really change the economics so that we can kind of give storage away for free and make it up on advertising. So they had to really rethink how the world was created, in terms of some very foundational components like storage and compute.

So we have a huge amount of projects. I think today we have almost 2,500 engineers across Huawei working on cloud-based projects; which, by the way, is bigger than the total R&D staff of most of our competitors in many markets. But most importantly what we have to acknowledge is, the thing that we have to build is not just a minor iteration of the historical data center, but we have to actually take what people like Amazon and Google philosophically have created, which is a radical rethinking of storage and computing, and turn that into commercial offerings.

We are just about to start trialing and putting out technology to show some of these technologies. But imagine an environment where the cost of storage could be one-tenth what it is today. And you do that by delayering and stripping out a ton of technology so that it’s just very simple architecture, very well-architected and orchestrated. If you change the cost of storage fundamentally for a carrier or for a consumer, for an enterprise, what is the implication of that? Everything. You could change your business model; you can no longer worry about, you only get one gigabyte of storage for your email or don’t make those big files because I don’t have anywhere to put them or be concerned about the cost of those hard drives, or the backup is too complex. If you can get rid of all of that by just changing this fundamental component of the cost of storage, it cascades through every one of these ICT ecosystems. So we call that single cloud, it’s a piece of our overall cloud architecture; and, candidly, I think it’s going to be one of these very big disruptions in the overall industry. Beyond that, obviously we’re doing stuff in everything you could imagine, next-generation wireless. Imagine, if you’ve played with an LTE network today, it’s pretty exciting. A 30-millisecond round-trip time, a 20-30 megabit per second of realistic bandwidth; the theoreticals are much higher. The stuff we’re working on pushed the envelope up to hundreds of megabits or gigabits per second over the wireless environment.

Now, it’s hard to say what you do with that. But I have no doubt that creative people will find a very interesting thing to do with gigabit wireless.

Ina Fried: Really fast dropped calls.

John Roese: Well, it’s funny, I was just at MIT last week, and they were showing me holographic video. I asked them a simple question: How much bandwidth does this take? And they said, “Well, basically it’s the equivalent of a whole bunch of high-definition channels combined to create this three-dimensional, high-definition visualization.” So they were talking hundreds of megs or gigabits of capacity to do holographic video. We think holographs are kind of neat, and they’re interesting. I’ve heard it come up a couple times in the last couple of days. But to move that over a network, we’re going to have to rethink and redesign the networks, which might be one of those first applications, but even if that isn’t the one, I have no doubt people will figure out what to do with it.

Ina Fried: Even making Netflix cost-effective. I mean, their pure data shows that right now we’re not in that place where it’s really you can get Netflix for $7.99 a month, but the cost of delivering a movie is approaching that same rate.

Moving on now to the Q&A with the audience …

Q: On this topic of spectrum and bandwidth, we actually had Mr. Gore here mention that one of the main challenges that the networks are facing is video delivery, broadband delivery; this is definitely one of the drivers. And if that’s an issue not only over typical wired networks, it is only more an issue if every single one of us started to want to stream video or these other high-bandwidth applications over the networks. It’s a significant challenge, which as I understand it, faces two very serious walls, which you’ve alluded to. One is the physics itself. And the second is a political wall. As an example, in Europe, one of the issues is you have a lot of small countries and space; they have to divide the spectrum in ways that are actually very, very inefficient and leave very little spectrum for a given country. So my question is, is this actually really a technical problem, or is it more of a political problem that needs to be solved, that will allow us to get that kind of bandwidth necessary?

John Roese: Yeah, well it’s a great question. I mean, the bottom line is, yes, there’s clearly a political piece to the equation. If you carve up spectrum in funny ways, or you decide that it can only be used in certain ways — like frequency division duplexing versus time division duplexing — these create an unnatural burden. Spectrum is a spectrum; it’s just a segment of the airwaves. We’d like to see a little more rational spectrum policy. Clearly it’s improving, and people I think, now — definitely the FCC, and around the world — are really thinking about how to free up spectrum. But it just takes quite a long time to actually accomplish that. But don’t underestimate the technical problem. There is clearly a technical problem that needs to be solved. You cannot take a network that was historically designed to move very low-bit-rate voice calls, GSM and SMS, and suddenly assume it can be an ultrabroadband wireless delivery vehicle for high-definition video, without really rethinking not just how you do things like modulation on the cellular side, but also how you design the network. And so, that heterogenous networking model, which I think is where most of the action is going to be for the next several years, starts to say, well maybe we should redesign the way the network works. Instead of having one tier, let’s have two tiers, let’s have small cells, let’s spectrum up in the 5- and 6GHz range in coordination with 700 megahertz spectrum.

Imagine a device, five years from now, that’s always connected over a 700MHz channel. So it’s got long range, great building penetration, it’s kind of the control channel — that’s where the important stuff flows. But it’s seamlessly able to invoke additional radios when it’s nearby a small cell, that gives it 100MHz wide channel, 4×4 MIMO, so it has a gigabit of capacity potentially to consume video. So those are all theoretically possible. There are technologies that can be built that way, but the design of the network is very different. It means that now you have to start putting those small cells somewhere; you have to decide that it’s okay to put them on light poles or on building walls, and if we have to have a permitting process that says it takes six months and $10,000 per site to get the permit to hang something on a light pole that just is a small cell in the second tier, that’s just not going to work. So you’re absolutely right, both are important pieces of the equation, both are resolvable, but if you just solve one without the other, it probably isn’t going to get us there.

Q: I have a question about Huawei and potential market share and mindshare in the U.S. One thing that I found really disrupting recently was, Google has shifted Chromebooks with an allocation of Verizon data for free each month. And I think that model is — it’s an incredible model, and I think if you were to put it on lower in phones, you could get people to dig in to this data so that they would see the value of it and want to purchase it, but it’s hardly anywhere. I’m just wondering if you have tried this in any markets around the world, and if you think that this might be something that would be disruptive enough to get traction in America? Because there’s no one offering that.

Ina Fried: So the drug-dealer model — the first hit is free. [laughter]

John Roese: Yeah, we’d rather not use that analogy, but generally it’s not us that are going to create that model, in the sense that it’s the carrier that ultimately has to decide what makes economic sense. Now, the good news is that carriers are now more and more engaged with us saying — they used to think of Hauwei as kind of a supplier of technology that kind of kept the other suppliers honest. That’s when we were in the fast-follower mode. Now that we’re the innovator, the dialogue we’re having with customers is fascinating. So I think you’re on to something, and I think that there are markets where the carriers are looking for ways to increase the penetration rate. And I think now Huawei has an opportunity to actually describe new business models, and the carriers are much more willing to listen to us, because they view us more as an innovator. So I haven’t had that discussion especially, but I’m pretty much, on a weekly basis, sitting down with either CEOs or CTOs or the operators.So maybe the next one, I’ll bounce it off of them and see what they say. I think it’s a great idea, and there’s many other examples in the enterprise world where we’ve done that as an industry and it has worked really well. Get people excited.

Cloud storage is a great example. Give them the first 20 Gb, and see what happens. If they like it, they’ll buy more.That’s what Picasa does, that’s what many of these systems do. You’re absolutely right, it needs to be applied to other markets.

Q: I have a question about your intellectual property strategy. Traditionally, IP is still a little bit of a stigma over here, especially in China. But Huawei has a very impressive IP strategy, so I want to know how it is received internationally, and how it compares to when you were at other international companies.

John Roese: I think you’re absolutely right. The perception is that intellectual property isn’t important. Some companies historically — Huawei, seven or eight years ago — said, no, this is really important. And in the last couple of years we’ve been in the top five intellectual property producers in the world, in all industries — a couple of the years we were, I think, number two. Today we have about 50,000 patents PCTs and patent applications globally. So, my — to answer your question very briefly, compared to Western companies I’ve been CTO of, in fact the patent portfolio is larger and the discipline and desire to create it and the willingness to invest in it is absolutely higher in Huawei. They get it, they understand it and I think realize that intellectual property is a critical part of actually being able to compete in the global marketplace.

Q: It seems like on the one hand you have Moore’s law, giving us faster and faster devices capable of consuming bandwidth, and new business models springing up to accelerate that consumption. On the other hand, you have networks struggling to provide enough spectra. I’d like the answer of, well, technology is going to find a way, but do you think that a period of just real latency is almost inevitable at this point, and if not, do you see solutions coming from outside the network world, like smart flash to do caching, to smooth peak times?

John Roese: Absolutely. The solution to these problems will not be just more bandwidth in the network. That’s a great vehicle. I joke that I’ve been in this industry long enough that we go — we oscillate as an industry between finding really long-term solutions to problems by looking at the end-end ecosystem technically, to moments of time where suddenly the network provides more bandwidth, and we think that you can solve every problem by just throwing bandwidth at it. We’re right now approaching a point in wireless where we can’t just throw bandwidth at it. LT is going to give us a bit of a bump, but it’s a bit more time before we get to LT advanced, and in between there, we will have to get very creative on content management, caching, dynamic transcoding, the intelligence of the endpoint, multi-tiered topologies — those are not cellular problems. And so, you’re absolutely correct, which is great for Huawei, because we actually touch all of those, as opposed to only having one tool to solve the problem.

Q: And do you think that’s going to result in an inevitable period where there’s just going to be a lot of latency?

John Roese: I think it’s going to slow things down in certain markets and certain business models, where the assumption of unlimited bandwidth in all environments is true. But you look over the last 20 years, and it has always gone through those cycles. I’m an optimist, I’ve seen us work through them before. The technical work to solve it when you’re in those “periods of latency” is much more complex. And then eventually we have a breakthrough on bandwidth capacity and everybody kind of breathes a sigh of relief and rapid innovation occurs. And then we do it to ourselves again. It’s inevitable.

John Roese Session Photos

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111020/huaweis-john-roese-live-at-asiad/feed/ 0