Ironically, the march toward a simplified, converged “digital home” is producing an overwhelming number of wireless and wireline offerings for consumers.
It seems the only thing growing as fast as the types of digital content and services consumers can access at home is the number of ways the offerings can be delivered. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and various types of RFID are common in homes in the United States and around the world today; other technologies like UWB, broadband over power line and the much-hyped WiMAX also are being quickly developed and marketed.
But while each individual technology and platform may offer its own distinct advantages, too many lack one important factor, according to Vamsi Sistla, director of broadband and residential entertainment at ABI Research: the ability to communicate with one another.
“There is a place for most of these technologies in the future of home networking,” said Sistla. “Each method’s proponents may say that their way is the one that will eventually win out, but that is not realistic, and nobody is asking, `How can we all co-exist?”‘
The answer, according to some, is government intervention. Sistla called on the Federal Communications Commission and similar agencies around the world to establish a mandated home networking standard upon which a multi-network translator and adapter could be built, facilitating communication between all sorts of in-home technologies.
While many agree on the need for a unifying standard, governmental intervention would create more problems than it would solve, countered Steven d’Alencon, vice president of product management and marketing for GoRemote Internet Communications Inc., which provides managed broadband network services to businesses and telecommuters.
“From my perspective and GoRemote’s perspective, legislation has absolutely no place in this space,” said d’Alencon, adding he was “kind of shocked” to hear Sistla’s call for the FCC to step in. “I think that’s ridiculous. I think the place for a standard-if there is a place for a standard-is the marketplace itself.”
While that may be true-particularly for business users with IT staffers at their beck and call-it also may be of little consolation to the average consumer to whom high-tech is often synonymous with high anxiety. A lack of education and cumbersome, uncommunicative systems already act as a straitjacket on the industry, many believe, leaving consumers, software developers and electronics producers equally frustrated.
In fact, one consumer manufacturer is experiencing a 30-percent return rate on its wireless products, according to Dave Fraser, chief executive officer of Devicescape Software Inc., a California-based firm that develops technology allowing Wi-Fi devices to communicate with each other. And consumer purchases that aren’t brought back to the retailer often end up as customer service nightmares, resulting in a sale that actually costs the manufacturer time and money.
“Consumer electronics companies are not only dealing with the competition,” explained Fraser, “but they’re offering products that have an increasingly high rate of return. Every device you introduce to the wireless network at home seems to have its own particular set-up and configuration. Ordinary human beings couldn’t even get the `12 o’clock’ on their VCRs to go off right, so how do you do it in a zero-IT environment?”
And it’s not just different technologies that are giving consumers headaches-evolutionary steps within a single technology can cause interoperability issues, too. Certain versions of Wi-Fi are not completely backwards-compatible, for instance, meaning users who want to move beyond 802.11a may need to upgrade entire systems just to introduce a new device to their home networks.
“That consumer has to figure out exactly what protocol they have, then upgrade more of their system,” according to Al Delattre, a partner in the Electronics and High Technology/Supply Chain Management practice for consultant Accenture. What should have been a simple addition “suddenly becomes a significant financial decision for the household …
“It becomes a very slippery slope.”
It’s no wonder, then, that users and analysts are looking for simple solutions to the increasingly complex problem of home networking. According to a recent Accenture study of 2,600 consumers in the United States, Europe and Japan, 70 percent of consumers would prefer a single provider or aggregator for their content, services and digital devices they envision in their future digital home. More than one-third of the respondents cited complexity of installation as a primary concern in the adoption of a new digital home network, and nearly as many were concerned about equipment becoming quickly outdated.
The potential for confusion seems to increase exponentially with the introduction of each new standard. For new technologies to gain traction with mass markets, they must be reliable and easily integrated.
“I think there are a lot of people out there who look at this device on our desks as sending and receiving e-mail and going to Google,” said Chuck Wilsker, CEO and president of the Telework Coalition, a lobbying group for at-home workers. “I think there either has to be some legislation or there has to be full disclosure” of technical specifications as people become more tech-savvy.
But while governmental agencies in other markets may look to implement a uniform standard, the FCC’s involvement in such an endeavor is highly unlikely. In the world of wireless, the commission’s primary objective is to certify equipment in an effort to avoid radio interference issues. Standards for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and even cellular itself have come from inside the industry, not from FCC meddling.
Some however, point to the early days of the U.S. digital cellular industry as evidence that some standardization needs to occur. The industry is still suffering from the missed opportunity of establishing a uniform cellular platform, they say, enabling state-mandated platforms in Europe and elsewhere to mature more rapidly.
“The U.S. did fall dramatically behind the rest of the planet because there wasn’t a federal mandate on the types of technology that could be used,” said Devicescape’s Fraser. “If you look at our phones, they’re pathetic in comparison” to handsets on more advanced networks.
Instead of federal mandates, the industries involved in creating the digital home of the future may look to replicate the Internet Engineering Task Force, an open international association of players from the World Wide Web. The group solicits input from its members and establishes standards and protocols in an effort to help the Internet evolve smoothly.
“That’s a good example of a working body that has a lot of input from individuals, but also from governments,” GoRemote’s d’Alencon said of the IETF.
With all the differing platforms, devices and technologies trying to work their way into the home, one over-arching body providing oversight may prove impractical. The free market may offer an opportunity for players from each industry-Internet service providers, TV broadcasters, wireline and wireless phone operators, content providers and consumer electronics manufacturers-to create a unifying technology. Joint marketing efforts could center on a single, consumer-facing brand ensuring interoperability.
Microsoft Corp. is working to establish such an identity with its PlaysForSure, which it uses jointly with music services and device-makers as a signal to consumers of an integrated platform. While no one expects every player to agree on a single unifying standard, companies that choose complementary partners to present a simplified, interoperable option for consumers may find themselves quickly gaining traction.
“We as an ecosystem have to figure out how to cooperate,” explained Delattre of Accenture. “We’re going to go from a solo-player game to a team sport. It doesn’t matter who you are, you’re going to have to line up with (partners) of some sort. If and once we establish that, there will be some momentum on adoption.”
