Videotron’s quest to launch its 3G+ network has been anything but straightforward. It was initially set for launch in May of 2010, but delays and problems forced the company to reschedule the launch for sometime in the summer. When that launch didn’t come to fruition, many analysts began wondering if it would ever happen.

Now, Quebecor Media and Videotron appear ready to go. A media advisory entitled “Quebecor Media and Videotron Invite You to the Dawn of a New Era” reveals that Pierre Karl Péladeau, President & CEO of Quebecor Media, and Robert Dépatie, President & CEO of Videotron, are launching Videotron’s 3G+ network on Thursday.

The September 9 launch will be held “simultaneously in Montréal, at Entrepôts Dominion, 3968 Saint-Ambroise St., and in Québec City, at the Québec City Convention Centre, 1000 René-Lévesque Blvd. E.”

The network is set to cover 90% of the population of the province of Quebec, says the Montreal Gazette.

The long-awaited arrival of 3G+ for Videotron is also expected to spark a bit of a pricing war between the company and the other carriers jockeying for position in the province. Most analysts seem to think that Quebecor is in good position to give Telus, Bell and Rogers something to think about in Quebec, as reports about the network’s “robustness” seem to be gaining ground.

Still, Videotron has a lot riding on the launch. With the aforementioned delays already presenting PR problems, any flaws in the network will be seized upon by the competition immediately. The network’s launch has to be perfect, which is why Quebecor and Videotron are making such an event out of it.

“We’re not expecting any problems,” said Marc Labelle, Videotron’s director of corporate communications. “We’re expecting the network to work from Day 1. We’re going to deliver the best network and the best services, and it’s going to get even better.”

This idea of the best network may come from the delays, as it’s thought that Quebecor and Videotron’s extensive testing of the network accounts for the setbacks. If the testing proves worthwhile, consumers and analysts will quickly forget all about the delays. But if there are flaws in the launch, questions about whether or not the wait was worth it will be hard to swallow for Videotron and Quebecor.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Jordan Richardson. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

If the latest rumours are true, the divide between the different compartments of your technological lifestyle may soon be disappearing. Sure with technologies like Bluetooth you can wirelessly connect almost anything to almost anything else; but Samsung is trying something new when it comes to mobile integration. No, its not 3D mobile phones (although those are certainly in the works), it’s Android TV!

While this project has yet to be confirmed, analyst conjecture has tech giant Samsung developing a line of televisions that incorporates the mobile operating system. The reason behind the integration is almost certainly twofold: First, it will allow Samsung to streamline user’s web browsing experience on their television, and second–a lesson that Samsung surely learned from Apple–it will help potential Android mobile users to become accustomed to the OS, something that will certainly help users when deciding which tablet or mobile device to buy.

But before you think Samsung has come up with a great idea, with Google on the march with its own Web TV, set to launch in American later this year, Sony developing its own brand of web-connected TVs, and Apple already defining the future of television, Samsung has clearly been beaten out of the starting gate, leaving it to play catch-up in a market it has long dominated.

There is little question that the television market is in a state of turmoil. With new advancements in visual entertainment technology developing faster than most companies can keep up, it’s difficult to know which avenues to commit funding to and which ones to avoid.

With choices like 3D TV, Internet enabled TV, and now the introduction of mobile operating systems into the mix, most companies, like Samsung, are looking to hedge their bets and develop at least something for every new genre and technological advancement. What this means is that very soon Samsung won’t be the only name in television looking to incorporate Android or another mobile OS into its TV line-up.

But beyond dabbling in every new technological pie, introducing Android to its television line-up has a much simpler reason behind it: market share. With the likes of Sony, Google, and Apple already looking to redefine what television technology looks like, Samsung needs to be proactive to retain its dominance in that particular tech market.

The question remains, however, will consumers flock to televisions employing their favourite mobile operating systems? They would if that internet-connected TV was synced with their favourite tablet device and mobile phone to seamlessly run the same apps, and since that’s what Apple is currently setting up, its little surprise the rest of the market is getting on board.

Welcome to the future of Television.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Matt Klassen. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

In the past, Alcatel-Lucent has been known as a conservative shopper. However, the telecom giant has been on aggressive shopping spree since the last few months. In a rather surprising move, ALU picked up ProgrammableWeb, a well-known repository for Web APIs, in June this year.

And now, it has acquired OpenPlug, a veteran mobile software and applications development tools vendor, to “deepen its role in the applications space by delivering, as part of its integrated suite of developer tools, a platform where application developers can write an application once, which will then be translated to run on any of the five major mobile operating systems.”

Is ALU planning to take on the likes of Apple and Google in the mobile platform market? Perhaps Not. Is there an undisclosed motive behind these strategic acquisitions? Let’s do a reality check.

Founded in 2002, OpenPlug is a French company headquartered in Sophia Antipolis and is best known as the creator of ELIPS Studio, a popular utility that lets developers “write mobile application code once and run everywhere”. Developers need to write application code once and ELIPS Studio then translates it into native code that can run on iPhones and Android-based smartphones. The founding principle of ELIPS Studio is very similar to that of Java – you write the source code once and the JVM makes it run on any platform.

Cross Platform Application Development is a challenge for mobile developers. In April, Apple imposed SDK restrictions prohibiting the use of cross-platform compilers. Tools such as ELIPS Studio are handy to bypass such restrictions as they have the capability to convert a developer’s source code into native iOS code. ELIPS Studio also offers support for other mobile platforms including Windows Mobile and Symbian as part of a recently launched beta. The company plans to add support for Samsung’s Bada and Nokia and Intel’s MeeGo, Qualcomm’s Brew, Research In Motion’s operating system and HTML5 in order to transform ELIPS Studio into an “ubiqutious” mobile development platform.

ALU says it will extend OpenPlug’s functionality to service providers, enterprises and developers, to reduce time to market for new programs and services. IMO, this offers a fantastic opportunity for Alcatel-Lucent as it bridges the gap between developers and proprietary mobile platforms.

Having picked up ProgrammableWeb earlier and now OpenPlug, ALU is clearly betting big on the mobile application development industry. I won’t be surprised if it actually plans to offer Web APIs for ELIPS to align both these acquisitions with its cloud-centric strategy. Alcatel-Lucent also plans to integrate the OpenPlug toolset into its Developer Platform and Open API Service, thus broadening the functionality available to service providers, enterprises and developers for the exposure of network assets and the rapid introduction of new services across mobile and Web domains.

Did you like this post? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here). 

Written by: Gaurav Kheterpal. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS>, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

The saga of cell phones and the sleepy hamlet of New Denver is coming to an end. I’ve been covering this story for a little while now and some interesting characters have come out of the woodwork, to say the least, but it looks like the bizarre adventure is over as Telus gears up to turn on its site.

The Telus investment clocks in at about $500,000 and couldn’t come a moment to soon for supporters of cell service in New Denver.

I first reported on the story in March of this year, discovering a clash between the old world quality of the West Kootenay region of British Columbia and, apparently, those wanting cell service brought to the locale where they had long gone without.

But the story deepened, revealing that there was more to the saga of cell phones and New Denver than a mere scuffle between Luddites and tech junkies. Instead, there were legitimate concerns over how the lack of cell phones was hurting the New Denver economy and driving people away. And there were not-so-legitimate concerns over the damage the cell towers might do.

In July of this year, I sniffed around again and discovered more. This time, the opposition to the cell phone tower had backed down somewhat. The Valhalla Committee for Environmental Health and the New Denver’s Parent Children’s Association (an odd name for an Association if I’ve ever heard one) claimed that they agreed that Telus was acting in good faith in bringing the tower to the Slocan Valley.

And so the case was closed, right? Wrong.

The hearts and minds of some opponents of cell phones in New Denver are not so easily swayed. Not content to let a lack of concrete, peer-reviewed scientific evidence stop them, some protesters of Telus’ involvement in the region turned to dangerous vandalism in a last-ditch attempt at “cutting” the whole thing.

No such luck, though, as Telus is turning on the juice in New Denver today. Whether that concludes the saga entirely remains to be seen, of course, but it is a victory of sorts for those who’ve wanted cell service in New Denver for so long.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Jordan Richardson. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

When news spread that several countries were battling with Research in Motion (RIM) over governmental access to encrypted Blackberry communications, you just knew that if the countries won the battle that the war would never be over.

In fact, several writers here at theTelecomblog predicted that such concessions to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and India would set a dangerous precedent throughout the mobile world, and now that that precedent has been set, RIM has some company in the ongoing Government vs. Technology wars.

It was announced last week that in addition to RIM, India has demanded that Google and Skype—among others—establish servers within the country so that the government can monitor encrypted communications. While Google has been down this road before with China, such fights with government bodies are likely tedious, time consuming, and not to mention, costly.

It is exactly these points that lead me to wonder, if all these tech companies soon start making deals with overly oppressive regimes, will there be anyone left to stand up and fight for people’s privacy?

Although neither Google nor Skype have received any formal request from the Indian government about setting up servers within the country’s borders, in an interview last week Home Secretary G.K. Pillai said that the restrictions and conditions applied to RIM will be “applied to all” in the near future, and that all telecom companies operating in India can expect similar notifications.

But are all these security measures really necessary? I’m really not quite sure why every country is now suddenly worried about mobile encryption, seeing that RIM, Google, and Skype have been operating in India and every other country in question for a very long time. While I would wager that it just took one concession to one country before they all started lining up, I have yet to figure out what really got this whole saga rolling.

The fact of the matter is that while it may seem innocuous enough to install a few servers in a country to avoid a ban that would cost companies like RIM millions of dollars, this sort of thinking not only makes countries like India out to be fear-mongering totalitarian regimes—which it certainly is not—it strikes a distinct note of fear in the population. If the government is so paranoid about encrypted Blackberry emails, what potential terrorist disasters are they hiding from the general public?

Beyond that, I really can’t wait to see what Google does in this situation. In its notable ongoing feud with China, the search engine giant didn’t think twice about pulling its servers out of the world’s most populace country. Will Google be willing to stand up to India and refuse the government access to its secure data? I truly hope so. But with Google’s long record of privacy blunders, I’m sure it will find some way to screw it up.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Matt Klassen. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

Although product releases are usually scant throughout the summer months, enough products have been unveiled, released, leaked, or rumoured to keep TheTelecomblog going for some time to come. Beyond that, however, it really seems to me that this is quickly shaping up to be the summer of VoIP, as the likes of Google and Cisco are looking to firmly entrench themselves in Internet Protocol telephone services.

But regardless of what month it is some news just never goes away, and this summer has seen more of the ongoing battle between Android and the iPhone, more tantalizing revelations of new and exciting tablet devices designed to dethrone the iPad and more bad news for Canadian mobile company Research in Motion.

Some things never change I guess.

1. The ExoPC Slate: A Step in the Right Direction for Windows 7

It looks like many of the anti-Apple iPad haters are pinning their hopes on the Exo-1, a Windows 7 tablet device developed by the small Canadian company ExoPC. The device is set for release in early September—although this date is a result of several push backs already—and analysts are already singing its praises. The question really becomes, however, will it unseat the iPad? Our writer’s conclusion: Doubtful.
Although it sports an intuitive skin overtop of its Windows 7 OS, this device will have to work hard to draw the average tech consumer away from the iPad. Sure the Exo-1 has some comparable features, but that’s rarely enough to compete with the incumbent market leader.

2. RIM’s Concession Stand: Four “Principles” of Lawful Access

I’m not quite sure what great evils Research in Motion committed in a past life, but the string of bad luck piling on top of the Canadian company makes me think that karma is out to get Balsillie and Co. On top of perpetually slumping sales figures and the fact that several of our writers have begun speculating that the end is near, RIM has had a litany of governmental complaints and threats levelled against it in regards to the Blackberry’s unbreakable security encryption.

The bad news—for Blackberry users across the 2/3s world at least—is that it looks like RIM is caving to those concerns, although the company claims to still be upholding their unbreakable four “principles” of lawful access of Blackberry data.

3. Microsoft: Android Isn’t Free!

Microsoft has come under fire recently for its decision to charge $15 per Windows Phone license, as many question the logic of such a fee in light of the fact that two popular competing mobile operating systems, Android and Symbian, are both free. In an effort to defend their position and even to offer a rebuttal, Microsoft has claimed that while Google says that Android is free for developers, manufacturers, and users alike, that really isn’t the case.

It is certainly true that Google closely guards any of its revenues generated from its Android operating system, meaning that its unclear how much Original equipment manufacturer (OEMs) pay to Google and how much of those hidden fees are passed on to you the consumer. The simple fact is, perhaps Google is a little more evil than it would like us to believe.

4. Google Aligns Itself with Losers: Why Android Will Never Beat Apple

In what turned out to be one of the most controversial posts of August, a speculative article regarding the eventual fate of Android had hundreds of our readers vehemently defending their favourite open OS. Although it’s undeniable that Android is a popular OS, my argument in the piece was that it achieved its current popularity on the backs of very unpopular devices. The problem for Android, it seems to me, is that its destined to be adopted by companies who lack the resources to develop and employ their own mobile operating system, and that sort of relationship never lasts forever.

I have no doubt that companies—like Motorola for instance—who utilize Android will see some initial success, but such success, in my mind, will invariably lead companies to invest mobile revenues in the development of their own OS; because if Apple has shown us anything, its that the big money is made when you control all aspects of the smartphone development process.

5. CRTC Rules Bell and TELUS Must Pay Customers

Finally a bit of good news; if you’re a Bell or TELUS customers, you’ll be getting some money in the mail. But before you think you’ve died and gone to heaven; wait till you hear why you’re getting a rebate. In turns out that over the span of 2002 to 2006 both Canadian telecom giants Bell and TELUS racked up an amazing $1.6 billion dollars of revenue generated directly from overcharges.

Now both companies were ordered to return that money back to customers and/or invest it in communications infrastructure, but since 2008 there has been an ongoing legal battle between the CRTC and consumer advocacy groups over how it should be split, and the courts decided a little bit of both would be the best course of action. But just in case you’re waiting for a wad of money coming your way, it turns out that Bell and TELUS have already spent almost $1 billion dollars of that money, leaving only about $750 million to be distributed amongst customers and invested in infrastructure.

6. Google Voice Integrates into Gmail: Calling Friends Becomes Easier than Emailing Them

In what is quickly shaping up to be some of the biggest news of the summer, there’s a battle for VoIP supremacy that is starting to brew and Google is looking to come out on top.

Although there as been a plethora of VoIP options, the popular name in that free IP telecommunications game has so far been Skype. But with news that Google has integrated free Voice chat into Gmail, that Cisco is looking to purchase Skype, and that smaller companies like VocalTec are coming out with absolutely no charge voice IP solutions, things are quickly heating up.

So who will come out on top?

Mitel announced that Philip Keenan has been appointed as Vice President of U.S. Partner Business, effective immediately. Philip will be reporting to Paul Butcher, President and COO of Mitel.

As VP of U.S Partner Business, Keenan will be responsible for all channel sales and support activities in the U.S. market.

“I am delighted to make this announcement. Phil brings a wealth of experience and leadership to the company and his role will allow us to further strengthen our channel sales and development in the U.S. market,” said Butcher. “As Mitel makes the transition into a software company, Phil will also play a key role in driving the continued evolution within our channel to successfully leverage this opportunity as the market continues to grow.”

Philip has enjoyed a highly successful 25-year career in worldwide sales, marketing, and strategic business development. He previously worked as the VP Multimedia Services at Nortel where he established Nortel’s Telepresence and collaboration services. Prior to that, Philip worked as a senior executive at Polycom where he held key positions including Senior VP Strategy and Solutions Marketing, Senior VP Worldwide Sales, and General Manager of their Network Systems Division. He holds a Bachelor of Science from Cardiff University, where he graduated with honors.

Nokia is by far the biggest player in the Indian mobile market. The company opted for a “price sensitive” policy and gave equal importance to low-cost feature phones and high-end smartphones alike. And it’s little wonder that its strategy to woo the masses with the “low cost” factor worked like wonders in the world’s second most populated country.

Not many phone makers can dare to take on Nokia when it comes to the “price game”. However, a small Indian pay phone company called Micromax thinks otherwise. With as many as 37 models launched in just over a year and a half, Micromax is now India’s third-largest GSM mobile phone vendor with a market share of 6 percent after Nokia (62 percent) and Samsung (8 percent).

Micromax is here to stay and take the fight to Nokia. As one of its founders, Vikas Jain puts it – “We are not the poor cousins of Nokia. Instead we will force Nokia to launch newer products to compete with us.”

Game On!

India is amongst the fastest growing mobile markets worldwide. Nearly all major phone manufacturers including Apple, RIM, Nokia, Samsung and others have a strong presence in the country. Though many analysts argue that India’s mobile segment is severely “overcrowded” and “stagnant”, it didn’t deter a group of four friends to dream the unthinkable - challenge Nokia with low-cost mobile phones. And then, Micromax was born.

Though the company has existed on paper since 1991, it launched its first phone in 2008 – a device with an oversized battery, a small screen, and tweaked electronics that made the phone run for as long as five days, and on standby for as many as 30 days. The founders hit on the idea that India has several people who can afford a low-cost mobile phone but have no or little access to electricity. The objective was to manufacture a phone which could be sold with “long battery life” as the differentiating factor.  Micromax has never looked back since then. Based in Gurgaon, near the national capital of Delhi, Micromax offers entry level phones starting at $40. Understandably, the low-end phones do not have Wi-Fi, 3G or GPS capabilities. Therefore, it reduces the hardware cost dramatically.

Micromax is selling nearly 1 million handsets each month. Nokia’s fall (64 percent in 2008 to 52 percent by the end of last year) has been Micromax’s gain. The company has ambitious plans to sell 30 million phones a year by the end of 2011—including 6 million in Africa and Latin America. Several private equity players including Boston-based TA Associates have invested in the company. Dual-SIM phones have been a huge hit for Micromax as an increasing number of Indian population is getting used to the idea of using multiple SIM cards.

Though Nokia maintains that Micromax is “too small” to be worried, there is no doubt that the former is reeling under intense competitive pressure. Touted as “India’s Mobile Phone Hitmaker” and “Next Giant Killer” by the press, Micromax is truly living up to its name.

Beware Nokia!

Did you like this post? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here). 

Written by: Gaurav Kheterpal. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS>, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

Ending what was a rough week for the incumbents, it looks like Bell Canada is stepping up to the plate against the recent CRTC ruling that would allow smaller internet providers room on the broadband networks of the Big Three.

Bell said that it would appeal the decision passed down by regulators on Monday. They’re taking the fight to cabinet just like they did when the CRTC made a similar decision in 2008. That time, the federal cabinet ruled in favour of Bell and the CRTC was sent off to “reconsider” the ruling.

“Cabinet accepted our appeal and asked the CRTC to look at this again,” said Mirko Bibic, Bell Canada’s executive vice-president of regulatory affairs. “I am astonished at how the CRTC can come back and give cabinet the very same decision that cabinet asked them to look at again. We are certainly going to be making our views well known.”

Cabinet will have 90 days to rule on the decision.

Bell’s Bibic claims that the decision, if allowed to stand, will negatively impact the company’s decision-making process when it comes to future investments in upgrades to their networks. Bibic says that the “right conditions” must exist in order for his company to see returns on investment. The notion here is that Bell won’t be able to afford to “do more” in terms of network upgrades and, as a result, the industry will stagnate.

It’s a similar power play to the game the Big Three typically trot out when they are ordered to generate advanced services for rural communities. Bell, Telus and Rogers complain about having to prop up the smaller companies and, as a result, not being able to invest in the infrastructure that they normally would were they not “babysitting” the small ISPs or providers. It’s a game that keeps Canada’s telecom sector reliant on the Big Three and it’s somewhat akin to blackmail.

The ruling from the CRTC in this case says that Bell must open up their lines between switching stations in neighbourhoods and homes. They can charge 10% more by way of mark-up, which serves as a sort of concession for the “good will” of the incumbents to let the new guys use the existing lines. For a new company, especially a small ISP, putting new lines into neighbourhoods proves difficult and complicated – especially considering the existing lines from, you guessed it, Bell, Telus or Rogers.

The CRTC’s ruling on the lines is that not only must they be made available but they must be entirely available. No limiting of the possible speeds or services available.

With Bell’s appeal already in the works, it’s doubtful that such a ruling will go through. Cabinet will probably once again side with the incumbents and the incumbents, for their part, will dangle the investment carrot yet again. Business will continue as usual for Canada’s telecommunications sector, with the Big Three’s stranglehold on consumers still intact.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Jordan Richardson. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

Samsung Galaxy Tab

In the technological world tablets are nothing more than consumption devices; bits of technology that no one needs but ones that soon no one will be able to live without. The purpose of such devices is clearly to improve people’s mobility and connectivity to the world at large, offering people accelerated access to their mobile existence without being tethered to the home or office. Or in simpler terms, tablet devices offer users the ability to consume information whenever and wherever they want.

For tablet manufacturers looking to unseat Apple’s incumbent iPad, the hope is that users can be lured towards alternative devices on the basis that their competing products offer enhanced consumption abilities; that is, offering users more access to multimedia data and more usability than the iPad. For Samsung, it means the Galaxy Tab.

If Samsung doesn’t already know, trying to compete with Apple’s marketing campaign is a veritable David vs. Goliath battle, with Goliath repeatedly stomping the diminutive David into the ground. That being said, Samsung is taking a different approach to marketing its tablet: Appeal to the average tech consumer’s logic and reason; a move that Samsung thinks is sure to spell success for the Galaxy Tab.

Oh poor Samsung, how little you understand the American psyche. 

As tablet devices set to compete with the iPad go, there’s little doubt that the Samsung Galaxy Tab isn’t well enough equipped for the job. Sporting Android v2.2 (Froyo) along with a speedy ARM Cortex A8 1.0 Ghz processor, seven hours of movie watching battery life, decent rear and front facing cameras, a multitouch screen, and built-in support for Flash 10.1, its clear to me that Samsung had one thing in mind with the Galaxy Tab, to be everything the iPad isn’t (Click here to see side-by-side comparison).

Further, take all those features and wrap them in a compact package—dimensions: 7.5 by 4.7 by 0.5 inches—with a weight almost half that of the iPad (13 ounces vs. 24 ounces for the iPad) and Samsung has probably done everything it needs to do to manufacture the perfect opposite of the iPad. Now all the company has to do is make people want one.

In the end, that will be the Achilles heel of all tablet manufacturers. Sure the likes of Samsung, Microsoft, Blackberry, and Cisco will be able to develop tablets that rival the iPad, but that still doesn’t guarantee that users will purchase them. The draw of a device like the Galaxy or the iPad is not measured in its features, but in its ethos—the spirit/feeling/lifestyle it communicates.

The fact that no one currently needs a tablet device means that people purchase them largely without the use of logic or rationality; they purchase them based on feelings and emotions. The question remains then, has Samsung done enough to appeal to the emotion-driven consumer-oriented American psyche? Seeing as I’ve never heard of the Galaxy Tab until today, probably not.

Photo c/o TechNewsWorld

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Matt Klassen. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

While many recognized the shrewdness of Hewlett-Packard’s (HP) move earlier this year to acquire the struggling mobile upstart Palm, few it seemed, truly recognized the brilliance of HP’s timing and business sense. Combined with earlier acquisitions, the purchase of Palm instantly gave HP the resources and technology to compete in the cutthroat mobile market, with the added bonus that HP scooped up its own innovative and intuitive mobile operating system with Palm’s popular, albeit under-utilized, webOS.

At the time I had lamented that it would probably take years for HP to successfully revitalize and incorporate Palm’s resources like the webOS, which is why I was so surprised today when I heard that HP is set to release a beta version of webOS v2.0 to a select number of application developers.

But even though the beta version adds several new features to the once semi-popular mobile OS, the fact remains that Palm has never had success selling devices running on webOS, which begs the question, will HP fair much better?

One of the key questions I had during the HP’s epic takeover of Palm was how would the computer giant utilize Palm’s resources to carve out its own niche in a very competitive mobile market? Sure HP had acquired almost all the tools it needed to become your one-stop tech and telecom solution, but would it know how to use them right? With this latest update for the webOS, I’m at least heartened by the fact that HP is still on track with its mobile plan.

To be fair, while there were many complaints regarding Palm’s lacklustre line-up of devices, its inability to properly use its resource like webOS, and its disappointing lack of quality usable mobile applications, the brilliance and usability of webOS was never really questioned.

The fact of the matter remains, however, that we have yet to see anything out of HP’s newly revamped mobile department that we can really judge; so its really difficult to tell what HP is actually going to do with Palm’s mobile OS, but if the specs of this newest update tell us anything, its that HP is looking to make a splash with its revamped OS.

With this latest update HP has offered application developers updated multitasking capabilities, revamped search tools, and various other synchronization and development goodies. Although it still employs the same familiar ‘cards’ system that was the centrepiece of all previous webOS iterations, even this feature has been updated and advanced to a point where it may be able to compete with the likes of Apple and company.

Further, HP has worked at correcting the disappointing lack of interesting apps for the webOS by allowing developers to build C or C++ plug-ins for apps built in other languages (HTML, JavaScript, or CSS). While this may mean little to those non-technophiles out there, the simple fact is, this feature will allow developers to import applications from other platforms, greatly improving the quality of apps available on Palm phones.

In the end, I doubt HP is releasing this new webOS as a way of bolstering sales for Palm’s struggling line-up, so in addition I would guess that a new line of webOS phones will most likely be available in the new year, and with that, HP will undoubtedly become a force to be reckoned with in the mobile market.

Naguib Sawiris, executive chairman of Orascom and majority investor in WIND Mobile, wasted little time in talking some good old-fashioned trash about Canada’s telecommunications industry and the players in it. Seemingly buoyed by recent news of WIND’s 100,000 subscriber milestone, Sawiris was interviewed by the Globe and Mail and left little to the imagination.

Sawiris is well-known for making risky investments in dangerous parts of the world, but his successes reveal a shrewd businessman that knows more than most about the ins and outs of global telecommunications. “We go where people don’t dare to go,” he told the Globe and Mail. “We’re crazy, adventurous.”

Part of where “people don’t dare to go,” presumably, is Canada’s “backwater” telecommunications industry. Sawiris’ investment in WIND Mobile is what brought the new company to the fray in this country and it looks like the investment is ticking along just nicely, even as it has a few oligopoly-sized icebergs to crack through.

It hasn’t been easy to get things going, however, and Sawiris doesn’t mince words when it comes to Canada’s investment climate. Telling the Globe and Mail that he considers Canada to have one of the worst environments for investing out of all of the countries he deals in, Sawiris doesn’t seem to be afraid of speaking his mind.

With networks that serve 120 million subscribers worldwide, Sawiris’ company is globally dominant. And critics consider his involvement with WIND Mobile just another piece of the puzzle, with proof of this coming as Sawiris describes the future of global telecommunications as being in the hands of just a few firms.

With Canada potentially serving as a mini-model of Sawiris’ global dream, you’d think he would be a touch more appreciative. But the industrialist makes no bones about Canada’s Big Three: they are a “joke.”

“I have been offered by two of them (Telus, Bell, Rogers Communications) to buy me out at a very significant profit,” Mr. Sawiris said. “But that means I’m a broker, not an industrialist. It’s against my saga, against my history. I’m not the kind of guy who goes out for the money. It’s about success. And this, I would consider it as a bribe.”

And we all know Sawiris is above bribes, right?

Sawiris is also quick to criticize the Big Three for playing unfairly, lambasting the companies for denying WIND Mobile access to the wireless infrastructure sharing agreements mandated by the CRTC.

As to the other new companies in Canada’s “backwater” industry, Sawiris is clear about what he sees. His belief in the inevitability of failure for Mobilicity and Public Mobile is evident. “They will be dead on arrival,” Sawiris says.

Tough talk, indeed, and we haven’t even reached the moves Sawiris is up to with Russian powerhouse VimpelCom on the road to global consolidation. His quest for international domination certainly begs some questions, as there appears to be little the bold captain of industry won’t do to further advance his telecom aspirations.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Jordan Richardson. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

The Church of Extreme Net Neutrality would like you to have faith; to believe in the teachings of old that an open and accessible regulated Internet is good for everyone, and that paid prioritization of Internet services is quite possibly the deadliest of the technological sins. But now, my dear brothers and sisters, its time to wake up from your slumber, to start thinking for yourselves, and to see that, as AT&T seems to think, stringent Net Neutrality standards (and religion) are bad for everybody.  

Earlier this week AT&T Vice President Hank Hultquist posted a religiously-themed entry on the company’s Public Policy blog that has many in the telecom world scratching their heads. The post, you see, is a scathing rebuke of the proposed Net Neutrality standards, the push towards governmental regulation of your Internet service; but it’s so cloaked in AT&T’s own unique brand of garbled dogma, fear-mongering and overtly negative religious themes that it’s hard to make out his point.  

So what is Hultquist so worried about? He’s concerned that banning paid prioritization of Internet services would be “harmful and contrary to the fundamental principles of the Internet.” Further, he’s scared that pro Net Neutrality groups are brainwashing you, much like religion brainwashes billions of people around the world.

Wait a minute, that couldn’t really be his point, could it?

This whole Net Neutrality debate resurfaced earlier this summer when Google and Verizon attempted to develop some sort of joint workable solution to the ongoing Open Internet controversy. One of the key points of the proposal—one that I took objection to—was the notable distinction between private internet and public internet; a semantic division that would no doubt allow companies like Verizon and AT&T to keep prioritizing their network services—the single most central point that has been driving this debate since its inception.

It was then that the concept of “paid prioritization” became the central focus of the debate, which reached critical mass a few weeks ago when Free Press, a pro-regulatory advocacy group, submitted letters to the FCC complaining that any notion of the prioritization of Internet services contravened the very premise of Net Neutrality and was, in fact, “discriminatory,” arguing that it will “only benefit the few content giants that have deep enough pockets to pay for favorable treatment.”

AT&T’s counter-argument, buried so far beneath caustic rhetoric as to deem it almost totally incomprehensible, seems to be this: Such paid prioritization has always existed, has always been a part of the principles of the Internet, and was, it turns out, established by Federal regulators themselves in the mid ‘90s. So what’s the problem with it? Why can’t we all push for Net Neutrality standards that let everyone enjoy the status quo?

The problem, Mr. Hultquist, is that such prioritization has led to nothing but corporate greed, mismanagement of services, and a national broadband network that rivals many 3^rd world countries. To me, the existence of paid prioritization is the reason people are fighting for Net Neutrality, to bring sanity to an industry that has clearly lost its mind. So what if such prioritization has always been there? It hasn’t worked so far, so why keep it around?

So if wanting an equal and open Internet makes me the newest proselyte of the Church of Extreme Net Neutrality, sign me up and give me a free Bible. I may just start going door-to-door.

Did you like this post ? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Matt Klassen. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS >, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

Image Courtesy CNN Money

There’s no doubt that RIM is currently facing dwindling fortunes. While the company has tried more than one ways (Blackberry Torch, BlackPad & Cellmania) to curb the declining sales curve, none of the moves has worked. To make matters worse, it has got into all sorts of legal tangles with various governments including Saudi Arabia and India. 

If that wasn’t enough to harm RIM’s reputation, it has fallen out of favor with an increasing number of Wall Street analysts. The stock price has collapsed from its 2008 $140+ highs to mid 40s and there are no signs of a revival either.  

Is this the beginning of the end for RIM?

I’ve always been a huge fan of Blackberry. In fact, my first smartphone was a Blackberry and I still use it sparingly. And then, the iPhone happened followed by the Android revolution. Unfortunately, by the time RIM realized that it was in for some serious competitions, its rivals had already made their mark. RIM is in a sorry state and it’s corporate loyalties are fading fast. A recent survey in the United States and the U.K from Sanford C. Bernstein Ltd. suggests that nearly Three-quarters of companies are now opting for alternative devices such as the iPhone. In U.S. alone, it’s far worse with nearly 83 percent companies switching loyalties to iPhone and Android. 

The company pinned its hopes big time on Blackberry Torch but the device failed to appeal to the masses. PC World mentions “With a sluggish browser, a small and low-resolution touchscreen and a cramped keyboard, the phone may only appeal to previous Blackberry users and loyalists.” and I couldn’t agree more on that. Has RIM stopped reinventing and innovating? Obviously, it hasn’t. It’s fair to say that Android and iPhone have outpaced RIM in innovation. 

RIM’s stock has plunged nearly 15 percent and is looming close to the 52-week low mark. Many analysts believe that the company’s outlook is “scary” and it might well be put up for sale in the coming months. The company has received a lot of bad press over the looming bans in Saudi Arabia and India which has understandably hit its reputation in the stock market. Though RIM managed to negotiate deals with both countries in order to avoid the ban, its image has been tarnished well beyond repair. 

Is there a way out for RIM amidst all the doom and gloom? Your thoughts are welcome. 

Did you like this post? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here). 

Written by: Gaurav Kheterpal. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS>, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >

Google’s Android isn’t free, in fact there are substantial hidden costs which makes it a costlier affair than Windows Phone 7, a person familiar with Microsoft mobile strategy said. Microsoft has been under fire from all quarters for its decision to charge up to $15 per Windows Phone license, especially when two of the world’s most popular mobile platforms – Android and Symbian are free.

Are Microsoft’s claims valid? Has Google smartly hidden the Android licensing costs from public eye? Let’s dig deeper to find out the truth.

Microsoft is betting big on the success of Windows Phone 7 and plans to spend billions of dollars to establish its latest phone operating system. The company has already announced its plans to pay phone manufacturers for engineering costs and subsidizes developer costs to promote Windows Phone 7 application development. The trade-off due to these additional expenses and subsidies is the $15 licensing fee for Windows Phone 7 operating system

It is widely believed that “All that is open source is free“. Microsoft thinks otherwise and it believes the hidden costs associated with Android are a case in point. It’s easy to dismiss these allegations by labeling Microsoft as a staunch opponent to the open source philosophy. Microsoft never appreciated Linux and it certainly isn’t fond of Android either. Despite being an open source loyalist, I have to admit that Microsoft has a valid point, at least in case of Android.

Google has never disclosed it’s break-up of Android revenues and the controls it applies at the OEM end. The common perception is that Android is free for customers and developers alike. But is it free for OEMs? Perhaps not. Google shares private Android code drops with OEMs nearly 6 months in advance of the public release and it is widely believed that OEMs need to pay for this exclusive early-access. Second, Google is the legal owner of the Android trademark so OEMs need to take its approval in order to leverage on the Android brand name. Do you expect OEMs to cough up all these charges on their own? Microsoft claims that OEMs actually charge the customers to foot this bill.

Further, Microsoft says that Lawsuits over disputed Android IP have been costly for Android OEMs. In contrast, Microsoft handles any lawsuits related to Windows Phone 7 IP therefore the licensing fee is justified. Yet another reasoning put forward by Microsoft is that Windows Phone 7 comes with great user experiences in the Metro UI, Zune, Xbox LIVE, Exchange, and Visual Studio for app development. These are not built-in as part of Android and escalate costs even further.

Google’s mantra is “Do no evil”. Microsoft argues that Google is evil because the latter says Android is free, while it isn’t. It’s an interesting debate to say the least. What do you think? Should Google offer more transparency on the Android revenue model? Or is this another case of “I hate open source” stories from Bill Gates & Co.?

Did you like this post? TheTelecomBlog.com publishes daily news, editorial, thoughts, and controversial opinion – you can subscribe by: RSS (click here), or email (click here).

Written by: Gaurav Kheterpal. www.digitcom.ca >. Follow TheTelecomBlog.com > by: RSS>, Twitter >, Identi.ca >, or Friendfeed >