Last week’s news about a new WiMax venture involving Sprint, Clearwire, Google, Intel and others could finally pave the way for a wireless networking system that’s not limited to a few hundred feet and - just maybe - not tightly controlled by cellular carriers.

Like WiFi, WiMax makes it possible to transmit signals between base stations, PCs and other devices, including media players and mobile phones. But rather than being limited to about 300 square feet, a single WiMax base station could theoretically radiate a signal for 30 miles to home and office devices, or 10 miles to mobile devices. These ranges, of course, are dependent on a great many factors including terrain and interference.

As for speed, the WiMax Forum claims it can support up to 40 megabits per second in fixed applications or up to 15 Mbps for mobile use (DSL typically delivers below 2 Mbps). But as anyone who’s used a WiFi network knows, speed - like range - depends on lots of factors.

The idea is to create a metropolitan area network where one or more base stations can serve large numbers of people. Such a network could be an alternative to DSL or cable modems for homes and businesses and an alternative to WiFi and cellular for people on the move. It could also provide connectivity to mobile devices, including WiMax phones that use Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). A single WiMax station could connect thousands of users to the Internet.

Intel has been a major proponent of WiMax for years and is rolling out access cards, chipsets and other WiMax related technology. And it is embedding WiMax chips in Centrino-based laptops and other mobile devices.

During a question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters Thursday at Google headquarters, Google co-founder Larry Page told me the Clearwire deal is “a significant step in the direction of openness.”

Co-founder Sergey Brin added that Google “benefits from more people having more access to the Internet with greater bandwidth and fewer restrictions.”

Page confirmed that Google staff who work on the company’s Android cell phone operating system were also involved with the Clearwire deal. Android is designed to create a more open environment for cell phone services, and could work on the Clearwire network as well as on other wireless networks and existing cell phone systems.

While Google will offer its open Android mobile operating system to cell phone carriers, the advent of WiMax could allow the search giant to offer direct mobile services without having to negotiate with carriers. Google has already invested in a free citywide WiFi network for its hometown of Mountain View.

Although executives from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and others have talked about a new spirit of “openness,” mobile carriers are notorious for being control freaks, limiting or attempting to monetize almost anything that happens on their network.

Creating open networks, or at least increasing the number of companies offering mobile services, should go a long way to break the oligopoly that the incumbent carriers now enjoy. Unlike the current U.S. cell phone model, the new WiMax networks are likely to allow for greater flexibility and choice including the ability to get compatible handsets from a variety of companies.

This will become increasingly important as new mobile services emerge, especially with the advent of “cell phone banking” services run by PayPal, Obopay and others that ultimately allow individuals and businesses to use mobile devices to exchange money.

As a cautionary note, it’s important to consider that this new venture has a pedigree that doesn’t exactly scream openness. The new Clearwire will be 51 percent owned by Sprint. Other investors include cable companies Time Warner and Comcast.

Sprint competitors AT&T and Verizon are working on competing high-speed mobile technology called Long Term Evolution (LTE), which involves upgrading existing cellular networks to so called “fourth generation” or 4G capabilities to offer much higher download speeds.

I do worry that the cellular carriers are the major forces behind both WiMax and LTE, and the investment of major cable companies in Clearwire is also a bit concerning. Still, I’m hoping that the presence of other players and increasing pressure toward openness will create a business climate that looks more like the open Internet and less like closed cellular networks.

You don’t have to wait for WiMax or LTE to get wireless access to your laptop. Over the past year, I’ve tested EVDO wireless services from both Sprint and Verizon and both provide reasonably fast Internet service to my laptop. It’s not cheap. Sprint’s unlimited plan is $59.99 a month, while Verizon charges that for up to 5 gigabytes a month. At speeds up to 1.2 Mbps, this solution is acceptable by today’s standards for basic data but still shy of what’s needed for high quality video and voice.

A lot of people - especially its stockholders - are worried about the future of Yahoo now that Microsoft has backed away from its offer to buy the company for $47.5 billion. But Microsoft shareholders also have reason to worry.

Bill Gates, with a lot of help from Steve Ballmer, built the Microsoft on the back of the personal computer. Ballmer is now CEO of Microsoft and, starting in July, he’ll no longer have Gates as a work make. Although he’ll remain as chairman, Gates is retiring from his day-to-day responsibilities to devote more time to philanthropy.

As early as 1975, Gates saw the potential of PCs, predicting that the growing platform would create an enormous appetite for software. In 1981, he cemented Microsoft’s role by signing a deal to create the operating system for IBM’s first personal computer. Even though there wasn’t even a hint that Compaq would eventually release the first “PC clone,” Gates was smart enough to make his IBM deal non-exclusive allowing him to ink lucrative software deals with Compaq and eventually Dell, HP and the myriad of PC makers who needed Microsoft software to be sure their machines were compatible with the then gold standard IBM PC.

Gates, Ballmer and the thousands of other Microsoft employees rode this platform to such highs that they eventually wound up, literally, monopolizing the world’s desktop operating system market, prompting the U.S. Justice Department and governments around the world to file a variety anti-trust cases against the software giant. In 2000, U.S. District judge Penfield Jackson found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust violations and ordered the company split in two with one entity in charge of desktop software and the other able to sell operating systems. After a change in administrations, the Justice Department ultimately reached a less stringent settlement that allowed Microsoft to remain intact while promising to modify its behavior and submit to ongoing scrutiny.

---

Podcast: Larry Magid talks to veteran Silicon Valley technology analyst Tim Bajarn about the impact of Microsoft’s decision to withdraw its offer to buy Yahoo. furniture Videnov

---

office furniture in Bulgaria
During the midst of the anti-trust fervor, Gates told a Congressional hearing that market forces, not the government, should be in charge of determining who’s on top. “People who feared IBM were wrong,” he told a Senate Judiciary hearing in 1998, “technology is ever-changing.” A lot of people thought that was hyperbole, but in some sense history proved Gates to be right.

That very year, two graduate students from Stanford set up shop in a garage in Menlo Park, California and raised $100,000 to start Google, a Web-based company that’s now worth about $186 billion. If they were to combine their net worth, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin would be number three on Forbes’ list of the world’s wealthiest people. As it is, they share the number five spot.

Although Microsoft continues to be a powerful and profitable company, it has continually faltered where Google has succeeded. It’s not as if Microsoft hasn’t tried. It launched Microsoft Network, MSN, back in 1995 and promoted it so heavily on the Windows 95 desktop that some people worried it would be the death knell for all other online services. It wasn’t AOL wound up dominating the field until it too started to falter as broadband penetration ate up much of its dial-up business. Microsoft Hotmail came along in 1998 and the company has continued to invest in MSN and other Internet services. From a features perspective, it competes very well with Google, Yahoo and AOL. Like Alice’s Restaurant, you can get pretty much “anything you want” at Microsoft’s various websites. But, in February 2008 Comscor ranked Microsoft a distant third in search sites with 9.8% share of behind Google (58.5%) and Yahoo (22.2%). Microsoft also came out third in total visitors. Yahoo came in first followed by Google, Microsoft and AOL.

Yahoo’s number one position at attracting visitors and number two spot in search is not lost on Steve Ballmer, especially as he eyes Google’s enormous earnings from Internet search.

With its online services division losing an estimated $745 million in the past three quarters, Ballmer has to find a way to turn things around without the help of Yahoo.

That’s not going to be easy as the technology landscape turns from PCs to web-based and mobile applications and as consumers greatly overtake businesses as the most important technology buyers.

For the first 25 years of its history, PCs were pretty much the only game in town when it came to information and productivity applications but Microsoft is fighting Google, Yahoo and others on two fronts. Though Web-based productivity applications are still in their infancy, Google has shown that it is possible to bring Microsoft Office-like applications to the web. Gmail (along with competing products form Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL) is serving needs that once required desktop mail applications such as Outlook. But perhaps more importantly, Google Docs and Spreadsheets is now competing with Microsoft Office. I’m not saying that Google’s free web applications are going to put Office out of business. For example, I’m writing this column in Microsoft Word because it has far more robust features than Google and I still use Excel when I need a complex spreadsheet. Besides, there are times when people need these applications when they don’t have Internet access.

But times are changing. Web-based applications from Google and others are only going to get better and Google has already launched programs that will run when you’re not connected to the Internet. In the mean time, Microsoft faces operating system pressure not just from Apple (which is gaining in market share) but from Linux - a free “open source” operating system that’s growing in popularity, especially in the developing world where the cost of Microsoft software is simply prohibitive.

We’re also seeing the growth of the mobile phone as a platform of choice. Again, if you look to the developing world, you’ll find that cell phone penetration is far higher than PC use and as cell phones become more powerful, people are starting to use them instead of PCs for email, web surfing and even financial transactions. Microsoft has spent billions trying to compete in this market with its Windows Mobile products but despite some pretty good sales, it’s not winning too many comparative reviews against RIM’s Blackberry software and Apple’s highly regarded iPhone. And even in this arena Microsoft has to worry about Google which has recently launched development software cell phones and Yahoo which is trying to move most of its web services over to mobile phones.

So, with this as a backdrop, one wonders what Steve Ballmer will do. He hasn’t confided in me, but after watching him and Gates for nearly a quarter of a century, I think I know a thing or two about their tenacity. Ballmer won’t give up. He’ll continue to keep an eye on Yahoo and perhaps come back later - maybe with a lower offer - if Yahoo continues to stumble. And he’ll keep shopping for smaller companies or perhaps AOL all the while continuing to invest money in Microsoft’s own web services

By Larry Magid
Reposted from San Jose Mercury News

I’m happy to be a member of a recently formed Internet Safety Technical Task Force, but it has caused me to feel a bit of a disconnect. One of the major goals of the task force is to explore whether it’s possible to use technology to verify the age of people signing up for social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to give parents more control over whether their kids can use these services and to avoid inappropriate online contact between kids and adults. Yet, the first four experts to address the task force painted a picture that causes me to wonder if such technology would be helpful even if it could be employed.

The task force was formed in February as a result of an agreement between MySpace and 49 state attorneys general. The group consists of representatives of major Internet and social-networking services including MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, AOL, Google and Yahoo, along with officials from companies that offer age- and identity-verification technology. Several non-profit organizations are also represented, including ConnectSafely.org, which I co-founded with Anne Collier. (Disclosure: ConnectSafely receives financial support from several social-networking companies.)

The task force is a welcome intervention into what has been a nasty war of words. For the past couple of years, several attorneys general, lead by Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Roy Cooper of North Carolina, had been hammering at MySpace and other social networks because of the perceived danger of predators using the sites to contact children.

But that’s not what the task force heard from a panel of experts who actually know something about how kids can be harmed online. At its meeting in Washington on Wednesday, members heard from researchers Michelle Ybarra, from Internet Solutions for Kids; Janis Wolak, from the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center; Amanda Lenhart, from the Pew Internet & American Life Project; and Danah Boyd, a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley and a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Drawing from several surveys and studies, all of the researchers said the risk of a child being forced into sex from an online predator is almost non-existent. And in the relatively few cases where a youth does engage in sex with someone they first met online, the young person is almost always compliant in some fashion.

That doesn’t excuse the adult - having sex with someone under the age of consent is rightfully a serious crime. But as part of what we need to know to better protect kids, it’s important to realize that deception is rarely involved. Most teens are aware of the approximate age and intentions of the adults who contact them. Only 5 percent of the offenders pretend to be teens. In some cases, the kids themselves are being aggressive and sexually suggestive and pose in ways to make them look older than they are.

When unwanted sexual solicitations do occur, most youths deal with them appropriately. Two-thirds of youths didn’t view the solicitations as serious or threatening and “almost all youths handled unwanted sexual solicitations easy and effectively,” according to data reported by Wolak.

Researchers reiterated that the overwhelming majority of kids who are sexually exploited are victims of people they know from the off-line world. And they pointed out that children have a far greater chance of being harassed or “cyberbullied” by peers than by adults, and that nearly half of the cases of sexual solicitation were teen to teen.

Please don’t interpret these findings as being soft on predators or oblivious to the dangers on the Internet. Everyone in the room was deeply committed to protecting kids from the very real harms that do exist. But in the interest of safety it’s important to not confuse the perceived risks with the likely ones. To do so would be like worrying about some horrible but rare disease while failing to wear seat belts, washing your hands and flossing your teeth.

The task force’s main mandate is to explore age-verification technology that would make it a lot harder to claim you’re 14 when you’re actually 12 or that you’re 17 when you’re really 40. Social networks have age restrictions (typically kids have to be at least in their teens) but they now rely on user-supplied birth dates.

Some attorneys general want to see the electronic equivalent of showing an ID at the door. There are companies represented on the task force with tools that might be able to accomplish this including Aristotle, IDology and Sentinel Tech. But Sentinel Chief Executive John Cardillo told me age- and identity-verification schemes typically rely on credit reports and other data that is accessible for most adults but generally not available for people under 17. One could, in theory, access school, birth or Social Security records, but for a variety of good reasons, these databases are off-limits to private entities.

Though the task force has yet to hear from any age-verification vendors, I’m keeping an open mind about the efficacy of the technology. Yet, even if age verification is possible, I still question whether it’s desirable. I worry about some teens - including victims and youths questioning their sexual identity - being harmed because they’re denied access to online support services that could help them or even save their lives.