ReasonedResponse.com

For more than a decade, "untethering" was the core mantra of technology geeks.

We cut the landlines for telephone service, opting instead for the better features and lower costs of mobile phones.

We made Wi-Fi a national obsession, left behind the limitations of Ethernet cables and power cords for laptops that could be used in places as obscure as airplanes and city parks, and replaced wires with Bluetooth for personal headsets and microphones.

All of which makes it curious that I, like millions of other geeks worldwide, are busy getting tethered again.

Not in the old sense of tying oneself down to a stationary cable. But by replacing Wi-Fi connections with a high-speed data connection through a cell phone or card. All of the major cell phone providers are now offering an option to "tether" your data-enabled phone to your computer as a means of getting broadband service. Using a USB cable, the data-enabled cell phone becomes a "modem" through which a PC or laptop can access the Internet.

This "tethering" arrangement isn't yet all that it could be. After all, EVDO version A - the dominant form of data transmission for CDMA cell phones - transfers data at a relatively anemic rate of less than 500 Kbps.

That's about one-third of the standard DSL or cable transmission rate. HSDPA, the data transmission favored by GSM providers in the US, isn't appreciably better.

And the cost is higher than simply using Wi-Fi, since you must pay for an unlimited data service plus a monthly tethering fee of about $15.

Still, there are some excellent reasons why broadband users may want to take a second look at this "Cell-Fi" service over Wi-Fi or the someday-may-actually-arrive WiMAX for their wireless Internet service:

It's more secure. Wi-Fi, as you will note from my many scathing references to it, is somewhat less safe than playing with scorpions. Any time you make a Wi-Fi connection, you place yourself, your company and your friends at serious risk. Cell-Fi, by contrast, has built-in security capabilities that are far superior. In fact, for the average hacker a cellular data transmission is virtually impossible to hack.

It's more available. Let's face it, Wi-Fi's limitations are extreme. It won't penetrate buildings. Or trees. Or much of anything else. Even without obstacles, the signal doesn't penetrate very far. And trying to find a signal and connection even in "hot spots" can be daunting unless you are prepared to pay handsomely.

It's more reliable than satellite. Living in the country, I use a satellite as my primary Internet connection. It's an acceptable broadband service, unless the weather is very bad or some jerk is tying up the uplink trying to swap video files on a peer-to-peer network. Then the service can range from very slow to non-existent. On the other hand, I can tether at speeds only slightly lower than satellite and with substantially less lag time.<

I'm not the only broadband geek getting into tethering. A report from Infonetics Research predicts the mobile data market will quadruple in size over the next three years, with more than 144 million subscribers by 2011.

That growth will be driven by upgrades to HSDPA and EVDO to deliver download speeds of 1.5 Mbps or better over the next two years. And further reductions in pricing that will make the use of either a tethered cell phone or an "air card" more attractive to mainstream consumers

Broadband via cell phone is still a work in progress, and it will be a few years before there is enough movement in both price and performance to make it feasible for the masses. But for selected applications and locations, getting tethered may be a welcome trend in broadband access.

The term "discrete codes" may not mean anything to you unless you have purchased home electronics in the past couple of years.  If you have, you already know that you have to maintain and use a half-dozen or so different remote controls because a single, universal remote won't run all of your devices unelss you are using a high-end, hundreds of dollars remote.  And maybe not even then.

The problem isn't the universal remote.  The problem is that manufacturers of electronics equipment keep their costs low by using the smallest possible set of discrete codes for their devices -- or creating new, non-standard codes.  They are able to then sell you a device that looks, sounds and performs just as you wish, unless you want to use a single remote to control the device.

Flat-screen televisions are not the only offenders, but they are the worst.  Buy a flat-screen at any of the dozens of discount electronics store and you'll quickly find that its remote won't work with your cable or satellite receiver, much less a DVD player or stereo receiver.  It may say it does, but chances are that remote was designed two years ago, using the codes available then but not now.

This would be okay if you could learn this before making the purchase and factor that into the buying decision -- do I want to save $10 but have to use six remote controllers?  But the people who review these devices almost never talk about how the remote control works, or even if it works.  And the manufacturers certainly won't 'fess up to how they have cut corners.

Deat CNet and Amazon:  please add this to the categores you review for electronics equipment. 

Dear cheapie manufacturers:  please add a buck or two to your costs and use the full set of discrete codes for your devices.

Dear reader:  caveat emptor.  Buyer beware.

I grow weary of the "Woe-Is-US" crowd.  You know, the progressives and pundits so desperate to find fault with the United States that they have spent the past five years trashing our broadband deployment efforts and demanding that we mandate the kind of heavy-handed, draconian regulation that nearly killed the railroads in the 19th Century.

But as William Shakespeare noted in the Merchant of Venice: "Truth will out."

While the "Woe-Is-US" crowd was busy chasing the OECD rankings and wailing about how truly awful everything is here in America, calmer heads were working to determine where the trouble spots were occurring and how we might remedy them.  We knew that our data was insufficient to the task, and that we has best proceed with caution lest we create unintended consequences.  We also knew that with the level of private investment occurring in the broadband markets, and the number of competitors ramping up with lower costs and higher speeds, the OECD rankings couldn't possibly be painting a realistic picture of broadband in the US.

New and better data is starting to emerge, and it's not painting the doom-and-gloom scene you might expect:

• Last week, the National Telecommunications Information Administration issued its "Networked Nation: Broadband in America" study concluding that the objective of affordable access to broadband nationwide -- as stated by President Bush in 2004 -- has been realized "to a very great degree."  The NTIA report drew heavily on an FCC study showing that 99 percent of all US zip codes receive broadband service from at least one provider, and more than 80 percent have at least four high-speed providers offering service. Critics have consistently held that the zip code data is misleading, and the NTIA conceded that more work needs to be done regarding deployment, but that the broadband picture is much rosier than studies to date would have you believe.  I'll add another note that your don't see quoted much:  Maybe the zip code data isn't useless at all.  A study by the Huntington, West Virginia Department of Business and Economic Research found in 2005 that Appalachina businesses in zip code areas in which there was a broadband provider saw productivity gains of between 14 and 17 percent.  Direct correlation that validates at least some of the FCC data.
• Also last week came an analysis from John Horigan of the Pew Internet and American Life Project.  Pew notes that the data showing the US lagging in broadband may not be accurate because government assessment capabilities are inadequate.  Horrigan notes that in rural areas in particular, local governments simply don't have the tools to develop a valid snapshot of broadband deployment or adoption. 
• Finally this week, Connectivity Scorecard (CS) released a report not on how countries are utilizing telecommunications technologies to improve social and economic prosperity.   CS, created by London Business School professor Leonard Waverman, measures countries on 30 different indicators. The
  US topped the rankings, followed by Japan and Canada. South Korea, which normally ranks at or near the top in any Internet study, finished in the middle of the pack. Researchers attribute this to the US usage of technology to increase productivity, while South Korea's usage is not predominantly corporate in nature but consumer applications for entertainment purposes.  The study notes that the top-ranking United States, which has benefited the most from ICT, was rated below 7 out of 10, mostly due to weak usage of vast broadband networks, indicating there is room for improvement for all countries. "These results indicate an opportunity for countries to add hundreds of billions of dollars in economic benefit by rethinking how they measure and enable connectivity," the study said.
  

Finally, we are beginning to understand that the problem may not be with deployment but with adoption.  That is, publicly berating broadband providers because of low adoption rates may be a ploy to push political agendas for network neutrality, open access and mandated terms of service.  When in fact we are doing just fine deploying the infrastructure but need to focus more attention on why there are no applications that are driving greater adoption among some segments of the consumering public; on why people do not have the computer skills and literacy to make use of the Internet; and why some people just don't feel the Internet will ever be relevant to their lives.

I know it's wrong to be judgmental, or to view things in black and white, but here's the deal -- I really, really hate HP.

They make some of the best-known printers on the planet, and I have used them faithfully since my first Laserjet back in the Dark Ages. But lately something evil has happened to that company, and I'm not referring to their merger with Compaq or the shenanigans in the boardroom.

I'm talking about doing harm to consumers.  And it turns out that this isn't just my opinion, but the subject of a study by the American Consumer Institute as well (Disclaimer:  the ACI study doesn't single out HP, but I do because I use their products and believe they epitomize the problem).

I'm still really buzzed because a year after Windows Vista was released to corporate users, HP still did not have drivers for many of their LaserJet products.  A year.  Long after they were promised.  Long after they should have been done.  Jeez, it's not as if they didn't have two years before that to get ready.  Personally, I believe that they withheld the the drivers hoping people would get the hint and upgrade to new printers.   Of course, none of the inexpensive laser printers were offered with Vista drivers.

So now ACI releases a study that shows that consumers are being ripped off to the tune of about $6 billion a year by printer companies who low-ball the cost of the inkjet printers and then jack up the price of  the print cartidges to make their money.  That's the reason the printers can be had for $29, $19 or even free.  Disengenuous, if not immoral.

HP is the leader of the inkjet industry, but you don't see much leadership coming from them these days.  And that's a shame, because they were once a company that valued integrity, truth, consumer support and service. 

What could they do?   For starters, publish a list for each of their printers of the number of average printed pages per cartridge (they can do this for laser printers, I notice, but don't seem to for inkjets).  And they can price their products realistically according to manufacturing and marketing costs, rather than using them as a loss leader to rip off poor working families and students with lowball initial hardware prices and high cartridge costs.

I know the HP board of directors has other matters with which to deal, but they ought to give this one a little priority.  They used to be a leader in the printer industry, and could be again.  All they have to do is show a little leadership.