As well as all of the wonderful corporate blogs and customer publications that we manage for industry leaders  like Orange Business Services, Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Networks,  Airwave, TelecityGroup and Vodafone, we also still like to get our hands dirty with the nitty gritty of the technology businesses. Writing white papers is never easy but does give us an opportunity to really get our teeth into some pretty cool technology. In the last couple of months, we’ve written reports on M2M telemedicine, M2M applications, Cloud Computing and enterprise perimter security. The latest is a report on femto cells (or small cells) for Alcatel-Lucent. Bell Labs performed an extensive five country consumer survey (and I mean extensive) on attitudes to small cells and mobile broadband. So while pundits may argue mobile operators should be paying the costs for network in-fill, a surprising number of people are prepared to buy their own femto cell if it provides an significantly improved mobile broadband experience. I know I would.

If you’re interested in what people would do with a femto cell at home, check out this white paper that we wrote for Alcatel-Lucent: Alcatel-Lucent small cells whitepaper

This will probably come back to bite me….

I love my iPhone, it’s indispensible. I run with it (tracking my distance and speed), i’ve used it when i’ve been lost in the mountains, i’ve checked train times, used maps, watched TV episodes when I’m on the treadmill in the gym, search recipes in the supermarket, found recommended cocktails when wandering around the West End, and listen to audio books on the Tube. I’ve even used it to have multi-way, international Skype conferences while I’m stuck in a service station on the M1. It’s properly integrated with out MS Exchange, so i have pretty seamless communications.

For me, its the personal and portable nature of the iPhone which has become indispensable – and i think augmented reality apps (when mature) will entrench the addiction even further.

So what of the iPad? Its seems to me predominately a device for using at home – although yes it would make a great accompanyment to a long haul flight if the 10 hour battery life for video playback is a genuine.

So what would I use the iPad? Which of the dozens of location and office productivity tools that i have on my iPhone will be useful on a tablet that spends most of its time in the living room?

I’m sure that the enduringly innovative app developer community will prove me wrong, and before you know it there will be a plethora of compelling and addictive iPad apps – but it seems to me that the most likely use of the iPad in my home will be the web and possibly TV series. I already purchase TV through the iPhone and connect to my giant plasma screen using an AV out cable so that’s not nessarily a new feature. The iPad doesn’t have HDMI either. Or USB. And its 4:3, so not great for most of today’s video content.

And so to the Web – the Web that requires so many plugins and updates that allow you to view the broad spectrum of file formats. Like Flash – the iPad does not offer in-browser Flash. Kind of dumb in my humble opinion.

Apple in its rather closed, limited environment, would rather that you were a viewer or consumer of the Web rather than a contributor to it, they would rather you purchase your leisure time through iTunes than finding you pleasure spread throughout the four corners on obscure site. I cannot believe that the iPad will offer me a sufficiently flexible and rewarding experience as my £500 laptop, with which i can download all manner of content and plugins. My cheapo Dell Vostro is light enough, with a long enough battery life, to support most of the living room browsing I need. A Windows tablet would probably do the trick if i really wanted a tablet. Or maybe the new Chrome OS ultra-mobile PCs.

So for me, the iPad is just a little bit too much. Just like the Touch, and the Apple TV. A profitable niche perhaps, but unless you are a Mac lover (I’m not), the tablet in my living room will need to be a lot more open than an iPad.

There are some more objections here: http://technologizer.com/2010/01/27/my-first-25-questions-about-apples-ipad/ and this wonderful sanitary towel courtesy of failblog.

@stewartbaines

So how did social media fare in 2009, and what can we look forward to in 2010? If Facebook could be considered a bell-weather for social media, then 2009 was an important year, because it broke through 300 million users and became cash-flow positive for the first time. Although this of course doesn’t mean that it is profitable – yet.

Analyst Gartner reckons that Facebook will actually strengthen its position in the future, because it will help different social networks operate with mechanisms such as Facebook Connect. In fact, Gartner believes that interoperability will be the most important trend in social networks over the next two years.

All business sectors embraced social media in 2009. Look at newspapers; criticised by Gartner in early 2009, the vast majority of newspaper sites now have social media widgets to help their readers share information. The Telegraph, for example, has a ‘retweet’ button, which handily counts the number of times readers have retweeted its articles.

Away from the mainstream, social media turned up in all sorts of places. It aimed to stop the spread of swine flu, got jurors into trouble in court and even saw an innocent man hauled down the police station to be questioned about terrorism offenses.

So what for next year? Well Forrester’s Josh Bernoff believes that 2010 is the year when marketers will focus less on fuzzy social media metrics and look for proper measureable marketing metrics. Getting followers and friends is all very well, but if businesses don’t use these networks or connections for any obvious end, then the money is wasted. In fact it can be counterproductive if the connections get bored or disillusioned with the enterprise’s business.

What do you think?

After years of gnashing teeth about the brain drain of innovators out of the UK, it appears that the tide may be turning. A recent article in Reuters claims that international technology entrepreneurs are in fact choosing the UK, with London and Cambridge proving particularly popular. It quotes someone from the OECD saying that the “UK is now well placed in Europe on a number of indexes measuring factors like taxes, red tape, the dynamics of internal markets and how they are connected on the world stage, and the ability to access a qualified workforce.” The article also points to a review by the Legatum Institute, that places the UK 2nd in the world in “Entrepreneurship and Innovation”. Good news indeed, particularly with our esteemed bankers all threatening to take their expense accounts to Geneva.

In the mainstream media, there is still far too much rubbish, lies and misinformation about technology. Too many pundits who fail to question what they are being told.

There was a classic example on Radio 4’s Today Programme  - a discussion on why 3G service in the UK is so disappointing and patchy. While Peter Cochrane, one time CTO of BT, did make the occassional relevant point, such as why O2 has a poor network***, he also blamed poor 3G network coverage on clustering. Apparently kids sit around coffee shops, simultaneously watching the same video on their individual mobiles. This, apparently, is the reason for our collectively poor service experience. I’ll leave you to make your own conclusions about that. Check out the interview here at 7:13 on Friday 15 Jan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

But it got me thinking about all the recieved wisdom about technology, all the rubbish masquerading as fact.

One of those is country league tables for broadband speeds. It may be interesting to know where the UK is – 26th apparently – but does this mean that we are really way down the list of broadband competitiveness, or indeed if broadband competitiveness has any baring on the digital economy? Does the relative position of where we a country is in the league table mean that somehow that its internet users are less evolved, that with 5mbps they do not operate on the same level of conciousness of citizens graced by 50mbps? Or does it mean that those with higher speed, more reliable connections simply are recipients of even more mass media channelled downwards through these fat pipes.

I love my fast broadband, I genuinely like the experience of BT Vision’s IPTV, and I regularly use BBC iPlayer and download games to my PS3, I use Spotify and spend huge sums on TV and music on iTunes. But will i be disappointed if in two or three years this isn’t a 50mbps or 1gbps connection?

My current 16mbps pipe is a conduit to mass media. Of course, that’s not so say that my internet experience is limited to this – quite the contrary, much of my working life is spent researching online, and I buy online in preference to visiting stores – but this does not need require a constant race for increased broadband access speeds. The impact of high speeds means that much of my Internet experience is now a sit-back rather than sit-forward experience. I watch, listen and play much more now than read and browse. Any rich media I want, it’s on demand. And i can’t help thinking its a little addictive, and that i’m spending less time discovering and learning. So tell me now – what does broadband competiveness means to the digital economy? It means more supine people, able to consume media in more ways, more often. Hardly enlightened! So why do writers, consultants and politicians continue to bang on about the need for broadband competitiveness without thinking about what it means?

Footnote:

***O2’s lower GSM spectrum band – 900Mhz – means it had quite large cell sizes originally. The high spectrum of 3G – 2100Mhz – needs smaller cells sizes, and therefore more of them. O2 is still in the process of trying to acquire additional cell sites rather than using just the GSM sites it already has, a process known as infill. This may have been fine if it wasnt for the boom in mobile apps and content created by the iPhone, which has taken O2 by surprise. The shear volume of data traffic generated by apps and content has highlighted another weak point – backhaul. Even when there is sufficient wireless capacity, many cell sites do not have sufficient capacity to bring the traffic back to the core network. That’s why as an iPhone user you are offered free access to BT Openzones – its cheaper for O2 in the short term to pay BT to backhual its apps and content over WiFi. More backhaul is being provisioning but at the moment, it can’t keep pace with demand.

Judging from some of the news stories circulating online recently, you might be forgiven for thinking so. Researchers keep discovering flaws in the way that it works. Worryingly, these are not simply execution flaws. Rather, they are basic design flaws, which raise significant problems when it comes to mitigation.

Most recently, PhoneFactor, a company specializing in authentication using telephones, discovered a fundamental design flaw in SSL, a key technology designed to protect online web sessions from being hacked. 18 months ago, Dan Kaminsky, director of penetration testing at security consulting firm IOActive, discovered a flaw in the way that the Internet resolves web addresses. And shortly after he made his announcement, another pair of researchers announced yet another flaw, this time in the border gateway protocol [BGP], which is a key Internet technology designed to exchange information between different networks.

The most worrying thing about flaws such as these is that they render almost everyone using the Internet open to potential security attacks. For example, the flaw that PhoneFactor found lies with the secure socket layer [SSL], which is used to encrypt information passing between a website and a browser. It enables an attacker to inject their own data into the communication stream between the user and the website — even when that website is using encryption technology. This partly invalidates the padlock that you will see in your browser when surfing supposedly secure websites. Perhaps even more worryingly for enterprise users, it also potentially affects users of smartcards, which could render your whole two factor authentication system for remote employees [if you use one] vulnerable to attack.

Because SSL is a foundational technology which protects so many other things online, this design flaw is particularly worrisome. For example, others have pointed out that SSL is commonly used to protect database queries sent from one computer to another. If an attacker can inject their own commands into an SQL database query, they could turn something fairly innocuous — such as a request for a single customer’s details, for example — into something more malicious, such as a instruction to delete all of your customer records [assuming that the database granted such permissions].

Security problems have also been found in MD5, an encryption mechanism that has been traditionally popular on the Internet, and was used by some certificate authorities [the companies that create digital certificates designed to identify organizations and people, and authenticate them online].

Even so, not everyone believes that the Internet is fundamentally broken. Leslie Forbes, technical services manager at F-Secure, which sells software and services designed to make people more secure online, argues that it is the way we use it that is inherently flawed. “It is the model we used to trust [or not] the services offered across the medium that is broken,” Forbes says. “So, based on the premise that the Internet is supported by software, and software will have bugs — some never dreamed over the time of coding — there will always be fixes to be made.”

One of the biggest problems when such flaws are discovered is the remediation process. Fixing deployment errors is bad enough, but it generally only involves passing a piece of software or firmware and then distributing it online. But when the security problem involves a basic mistake in the design of a protocol, then this entails a potential change to a standard, which can be a much more complex task. Standards bodies move at a glacial pace, meaning that it can take years to alter existing documents to account for a design problem. In the meantime, companies must find workarounds that at least prevent an attack from happening in the interim.

Unfortunately, the general consensus is that such design flaws will keep cropping up as we become more adept at finding them [and hopefully do so before the Internet criminals]. “Any complex system will be difficult [or time-consuming] to analyze empirically, so it will continue to be both possible, and likely, that while there are Internet protocols, there will be serious flaws,” warns Martin O’Neal, managing director of security consulting firm Corsaire.

Not only must these companies work together, but they must do so largely in secret, so that they can find the solution to the problem before malicious attackers do. To this end, a group of companies including Microsoft formed the Industry Consortium for Advancement of Security on the Internet [ICASI]. ICASI focuses on working together to try and find solutions to security problems affecting the broader Internet and not limited to any one vendor.

Unfortunately, such efforts do not otherwise result in a fix before attackers exploit such basic vulnerabilities. For example, the SSL flaw that PhoneFactor discovered was kept secret until it was independently uncovered in a discussion forum. Shortly after that, security researcher Anil Kumas used it to engineer an attack against the Twitter micro-blogging service that would enable any attacker to authenticate themselves as another user.

Alternately, the question of whether the Internet is broken maybe too simplistic. The online world is never that binary. After all, you are still reading this article online — something that is miraculous when we consider that the web didn’t exist 20 years ago. However, thanks to increasingly sophisticated attackers online, we are finding the Internet in a continuous state of disrepair. This is the nature of the medium. It is chaotic, disjointed, and always in flux. Perhaps the best that we can do is to secure systems as best we can by applying the most up-to-date patches, and then protecting all of our valuable data by increasing his, and applying multiple layers of defense to thwart any single attack. Internet may not be broken, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our best to try and fix it.

Further info

PhoneFactor SSL flaw discovery http://www.phonefactor.com/sslgap/

BGP flaw – http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Flaw-in-BGP-net-protocol/0,130061744,339291643,00.htm?omnRef=1337

Twitter hack http://www.securegoose.org/2009/11/tls-renegotiation-vulnerability-cve.html

Kaminsky DNS flaw news http://www.orange-business.com/en/mnc2/footer/news/enterprise_briefing/september2008/industry_watch.jsp

ICASI http://www.icasi.org

This blog was contributed by Danny Bradbury, one of Futurity Media’s international network of writers

I’d always imagined the nasty broadband monopolies would be in the vanguard of a two tiered internet. But no, sitting in the pretty lame Diner restuarant in Islington I realised it was the little folk appealing for some traffic prioritisation (of sorts). Pounding out of the restaurant’s speakers was All80sRadio, a streaming services comprising tunes that for a certain generation are a crime against humanity (think Bonny Tyler). Anyhow, All80sRadio appealed for fans of the internet radio station to go along to http://www.all80sradio.com/support.htm an donate via Paypal to support their development. In return, donors would be given the secret URL of where there is a high-quality stereo stream, rather than the lower quality coach class. Bonnie Tyler in stereo? Enough to make my hotdog sag.