Business Ethics - Still Important?

One of my friends turned me on to this site - Transparency International.  It is a font of information on the levels of possible corruption in countries around the world - and ranks each country by a corruption index. 

Many major western companies now have very strict rules of conduct for employees engaged in doing business - even in countries where corruption may be the norm.  They are prohibited from paying bribes, hiring agents and consultants linked to corrupt regimes and individuals and in general must do business in an "above the board" manner.

But what happens when a "transparent" company runs up against a company that does not comply with the standard "norms", as we may see it, of doing business?  Is it a foregone conclusion that they'll lose the deal?  Seems so.

But beyond even the revenue impact of lost deals, "transparent" companies must support the people and processes (read overhead) to ensure their businesses remain ethical.  This is a multi-million dollar expense that "non-transparent" companies don't have - and can sink back into winning more questionable deals - or even lowering their prices in areas of the world where business transparency is a "must" or "should".

I guess it all boils down to the fact that although markets are "globalized" how we do business, and how we preceive business ethics are still based on our culture, government, and perception of what is right and what is wrong - things that are not and probably never will be - in agreement.  Will "the good guys" of our culture win?

Wireless, Wireless Backhaul

There are a number of companies that are focused on optimizing and expanding the capacity of backhaul circuits for wireless base stations.  Smart phones like my iPhone using up a lot of 3G capacity and the advent of 4G technologies like LTE and WiMAX put a premium on the ability of mobile carriers to get traffic off the base station and on to backbone networks fast.

But for areas of any country where optical circuits are hard to find, there hasn't been a good reason to even think about purchasing a smart phone.  Performance is necessarily poor - copper backhaul is a limiting factor - and if you can't use the device to even 50 per cent of its capability, well...

That is why wireless, wireless backhaul's time may have finally arrived.  Companies like DragonWave pioneered the concept and are finding success all over the world.  Wireless, wireless backhaul allows mobile operators to reach more customers, more cost effectively - and sell them more services too - and less populated areas don't have to wait for streets and roads to be excavated and fiber laid down to implement higher bandwidth services.

Additionally, wireless, wireless backhaul can provide an interesting new way for rural operators to provide broadband to remote users in a cost effective manner - or even to expand their services to wholesale backhaul for mobile operators.  This is just another way to stave off the demise of POTS revenues for them as well.

It's interesting to note, that if you look at the Rural Stimulus funding currently in place, that most of it is targeted at optical build outs.  Maybe the U.S. government should look MUCH more closely at wireless solutions.  They can be put in place more quickly, for fewer $$'s.  Ooops, sorry, I am talking about a government program...

Bottom line, wireless, wireless backhaul is a great solution for expanding broadband and 3G/4G services to less populated areas - and its time IS now.

More Wireless Wins - More Goodbyes for POTS

In my very first blog post, I described how a 90+ year old acquaintenance had decided that his cell phone would be his only phone - and that he'd retire his land line.  Now companies with remote devices have the same option.  Companies like Sixnet are offering wireles routers and modems that allow ATMs, point of sale devices, and kiosks to communicate using wireless networks.  They're also good for backing up traditional land line communications for remote offices and small installations.  Even more interestingly, devices such as these are also very good solutions for smart grid applications and devices such as smart meters and controllers. 

It's all about cost.  Why pay for a land line when you can pay-as-you-go on the wireless network?  Wireless routers pay for themselves very quickly when you consider the monthly communications savings. 

And management you say?  The router manufactuerers are on top of this as well with software that allows "group" updates and simplified integration with existing management systems. 

So, if you work for a carrier and you are on the POTS side of the house - time for a career refresh.

Semi-Rugged Networks

70+ inches of snow in the east, record snow in Texas - the winter of 2010 has me thinking about the ruggedized network equipment market. 

Right now ruggedized networks are somewhat of a "niche".  There are ruggedized DSLAMs and cell tower equipment, ruggedized outdoor wireless enclosures, ruggedized routers for police and mobile applications, and ruggedized routers and switches for industrial applications and plant floors.  However, is there a market for "semi-rugged" networking equipment for business? 

The semi-rugged network equipment market would be analagous to the semi-rugged network computer market.  Panasonic, Dell, and HP have done a good job exploiting this market - supplying businesses with notebooks that feature hard drives that have "decent" shock protection or, for a few dollars more a solid state drive, outdoor readable screens, waterproof keyboards, and semi-tough cases.

Semi-rugged networking equipment for business might be an option for companies that need their remote or mobile offices - or even the networks in some key telecommuters' homes to continue to function under environmentally challenging conditions.  Semi-rugged networking equipment might include features such as:

• The ability to function in high temperature environments for long periods of time.  If there's no air conditioning, how long will a router work today under 110 degree heat?
• Dust and dirt resistance.  In some remote offices, networking equipment is stuffed into a closet or unused corner and ignored.  Ignored, that is, until something goes wrong.  The result is that the equipment is often subjected to layers of dust and grime.
• Shock resistance.  Every network support person has a story about equipment that has crashed to the floor in a remote office because an employee tripped over a power cord or network cable.  Equipment designed to handle a drop kick might help.

The semi-rugged notebook computer makers have found that businesses are often prepared to pay an extra $500 per system to protect their users' data.  Would companies do the same to protect their networks?

What do you think?

Similar Features

Maybe you haven't noticed, but what is happening in the telecommunications market has a lot in common with the automotive industry.   Perhaps I believe this is so because I work in telecom and my brother works for an automotive company, but I don't think that's the only reason.  Here's why.

• Mergers, acquisitions, and buyouts everywhere.  Let's see....  Cisco alone has purchased 40 companies in the last five years.  Meanwhile car companies have been bought and sold, and bought and sold - Chrysler is a good example - owned by Daimler-Benz, then an investment company, and now Ferrari.
• The government has been "involved".  Broadband stimulus for the telcos (and perhaps governemnt help for what's left of Nortel?) "Cash for Clunkers" for the auto companies (along with multi-billion dollar bailouts for GM and Chrysler).
• Market changes wrought by new technology and customer requirements.  For telco - IP, wireless, Apple and the iPhone, Google.  For the auto companies - hybrid vehicles, in car systems - GPS, Ford/Microsoft "Sync", Bluetooth, MP3/iPod/iPhone connections - desire for quality and value.

What it all means to me is that telecommunication companies should take a look at Ford's plan for success - it seems to be working well.

1. Accelerate new product introduction - replace or refresh 70 to 90 percent of product lineups.  How many new products have arrived in telecom over the past 5 years?  Does anyone have plans to refresh to replace 70 to 90 percent of the product line - or just "make do" with the old stuff?
2. Reduce structural costs.  That could mean a more rapid transition to optical/IP networks and faster retirement of legacy PSTN/SONET-based technologies.  And say, wouldn't a refresh/replacement of back office systems get costs down?
3. Be careful about taking government money.  Ford  acquired private funds during the downturn, then spent the money on new products.  GM and Chrysler took the goverment money and have spent millions on financial advisers and supporting government bureaucracy.   For telecom, the question is:  "What real results have we seen from the broadband stimulus initiative?  How much longer will it be before we see any - if at all?"
4. Rollout new products to reduce product age by 20% by 2014.  What would that take for telecom to do the same?

The auto industry and telecommunications both have a long, rich history of success.  However, changing times means changing the business - significantly - to remain successful.  Telecom companies might look to Ford as a harbinger of doing business in a global, rapidly changing, economy.  That means investing in new products, reducing structural costs, and being careful to avoid government subsidies that hinder their abilities to capitalize on emerging market opportunities.

Toys, Toys, Toys

I love technology just about as much as anyone, but I'm beginning to wonder when one's ability to manage all of the inputs and outputs that technology provides will overload.  The result, of course, will be disaster.  Maybe not big disasters, but small disasters that will result in pain for many individuals and their families. 

Case in point.  On a recent road trip, I stopped to refill my car with gas.  Sitting on the other side of the bank of gas pumps was a pickup truck blaring rap tunes.  The loud music attracted my attention, but the driver didn't just have loud music in the truck.  He also had a DVD player with the screen pointed at him, a lapop open and working on the passenger seat, and a dashboard that was ringed in neon blue lights that flashed around and around the circumference of the instrument panel.  Wow, I thought, I hope he isn't driving that truck anywhere around me!

People are constantly driving their cars while talking on the phone, texting, surfing the web, using laptops, looking at maps generated by their GPS's, singing along with loud music, managing the behavior of their children - and now watching DVD's and enjoying lights that flash in their faces.  How many accidents will occur because we humans can no longer all of the inputs and outputs - and drive our cars as well.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think it that it's time to surrender to technology.  Let's develop cars that can drive themselves - so we can phone, text, surf the web, use our laptops, sing along with the music, manage our kids, watch DVD's and enjoy light shows!  We'll all be safer on he road!

Baby Steps

I read IBM's "smart home" announcement today with interest (http://www.pcworld.com/article/185856/ibm_to_show_smart_home_devices.html).  But, frankly, I would have liked more.  Talking about linking media and "smart" thermostats isn't really earthshaking.  I have that in my home today.  And, the reality of what is currently available is, well, pretty basic.  But, there's a reason for that of course.

I think the conversation I had with the installer of my TXU "smart" thermostat (http://www.txu.com/residential/itherm_WebOffer.htm?WT.ac=DSMHP)tells the story well.  TXU currently offers homeowners, like myself, a thermostat that includes a wireless connection to your home wireless router and allows you to program it through the web and get reports regarding your energy useage.

The installer told me that when TXU started the program, they learned a lot as they went. 

• TXU didn't ask prospective customers simple questions like:  "Do you have a high speed Internet connection (DSL, Cable, Wireless) and wireless router with available Ethernet port?"  Instead, they asked customers if they had Internet access.  "Of course" answered a number of customers using dial up.  No high speed connection, no router - big problem.
• Many customers didn't know how to disable firewalls in their PCs and routers that got in the way of the thermostat's communication.  And, by the way, neither did the installers.  They're heating and cooling experts - not network "geeks".
• A number of customers got the thermostats simply to replace an old analog thermostat and have absolutely NO interest in using the web-based tools available to them.  Most of these folks hardly use a PC and could care less about the Internet.  (Yes, these people still exist!)
• Many installations took HOURS - up to 4 and 5 hours to install this relatively simple device!  (It took 20 minutes at my house.  I didn't need the "training" he was supposed to give me on how to use the web-based interface...it really was pretty darn simple!)  And, even then things didn't work.
• I have a friend (who is in the tech area by the way), who told me that she never HAS been able to get the thing to work at her house.

Therefore, I think that before the "smart home" takes off, companies that are in this market segment will have to:

• Not be afraid to ask prospective customers a fairly robust set of questions to make the installation process as painless as possible for both parties.  Better to be prepared than attempt installs that fail.
• Understand that not everyone is ready for the smart home - choose prospective customers carefully.
• Train installers in multiple technology facets.  These folks will have to know a bit about power, communications, PCs, applications, and media devices.  This will mean a pretty significant investment in training, but one that will pay dividends almost immediately.
• Make things SIMPLE.  The more complex everything is - the more chance there is for something to go wrong.  And, of course, if it's complex, most people won't take the time to figure out how to use it - it's just a waste of time to them!

So, we're just taking baby steps in the smart home arena right now - and we have a long way to go.  I don't think the technology itself will hold things up - but I do believe that without proper planning and training companies delving into this area could end up spending a lot of $$'s and having a lot of unhappy customers in the near term.