Dominique Bonte at ABI says we can expect to see huge increases in revenues from Carriers purchasing LBS infrastructure upgrades, namely around OMA-SUPL standards-compliant platforms that leverage GPS chipset commodities in handsets. The specific number is $2.2B by 2013. Dominique's work in the area of Outdoor GPS is conservative and therefore what I consider honest and good, so I respect what he has to say, but I'm having a hard time swallowing this pill.

The first wave of Carrier LBS infrastructure deployments lasted about 3 years between 1999 and 2001, and after that brief time when MPCs and GMLCs were purchased as standalone pieces of monolithic SS7 equipment, larger infrastructure players such as Ericsson and Nokia started giving the stuff away with network upgrades, destroying business models overnight for those focused on selling standalone LBS gear. Today, everything is IP-based with SUPL, and that means no more fork lifting redundancies of monstrous, expensive, fault-tolerant servers, but rather installing IT-grade inexpensive racks that handle TCP/IP and SIP traffic. The software that runs on it is equally IT-grade and should only command the same inexpensive price tag for a carrier. Compound this with the arrival of Google's Cell-ID offering beyond the command & control of wireless networks, further reducing the value of this once carrier-only information asset, and I wonder... who will pony-up the projected billions to pay infrastructure providers for what is now a commodity?

Thomas Landspurg, CTO of 8Motions and an LBS blogger, has launched opencellid, an open source project with the goal of collecting Cell-ID lat/longs and building an openmap database for developers to use freely.  Like OpenStreetMap, this service will only get better if people participate.  I applaud the effort.  It's great to see folks pressing past old in-network ways to extract location, as well as challenging new formidable ways and sources.  Don't give up!

So the long awaited results of the 700 Mhz auction are finalized finally, with Google bluffing their ante (I'm sure someone has already said this was part of their game-theorized strategy to participate all along), and with Verizon and AT&T pushing forward to win rights to build-out.  There are stories everywhere.  Some suggest the results signify a victory for Google because they get the open access conditions without the associated expenses.  Others suggest the outcome is a victory ultimately for consumers because they will receive more wireless freedom-of-choice.  Perhaps it's both, but if you look closely at the FCC rules for spectrum sale in the US along with the subsequent build-out rules, you might learn that both Verizon and AT&T have lots of time to build-out these networks, and despite strong opinions citing winners, losers, bluffers, and callers, consumers may have to wait a minimum of 4 years or maximum of 10 before using real live services.  The FCC rules for build-out state that 40 percent of the US population must be covered within four years, and 75 percent within ten years from the date of the spectrum sale.  This gives VZW and AT&T 10 years to sit on this before flicking the switch.  So, who do you think won?

Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC) with the Web is introducing a melting pot view of Location as a morphed creation with no discrete heritage or affiliation to a specific camp, and the cellular regime is loosing its grip on 'their' Location power tool.  Maximiliano Firtman (I guess that's his real name) over at Nokia's Forum has a nice review of the various Location options available which span networks, devices, methods, and cultural attitudes.  Welcome to the new world!   

 

So I've been too busy to comment on news, but heard about Verizon allegedly opening up under pressure (I'll believe it when I see it), about Google's 700 Mhz "money where our mouth is" intention, and about MyLocation.  What do they all have in common?  Freedom, and the impending end of a tyrannical good ol' boys club of privileged access to scarce mobile Location resources. 

The later is remarkable.  I don't think MyLocation is RF science or algorithmic, but rather sources inherent handset-based Cell-ID keys and couples them with anonymous and voluntary GPS positions through Maps usage, which is elegant; as is appending voluntary address inputs with Cell-ID keys to further build up the database.  It's classic Google and looks like what LBS old-timers might consider a wisdom of the crowds MPC/GMLC minus the privacy management mechanics.

...Lets hope this manifests itself as a wrecking ball against walls for Cell-ID access and perceived value, allowing anyone to start building applications, not just those who have built their business on courting carriers who still foolishly assume this data is worth something.  These guys aren't so special now, neither is the information, and I suspect you'll be free to compete in an open market soon enough (and once this is commoditized by the very people who use and generate it).

The US wireless market is not free. Apple's iPhone imprisonment care of AT&T's dungeon ball and chain is evidence. When you buy an iPhone in the US, you go to jail for 2 years, and the get out of jail free card is thrown away along with your prison cell key. Not only are you locked in, but you don't even have the choice to change cells once imprisoned. This oppressive, authoritarian behavior in a democratic society is disgusting, and it's sadly pathetic that empowered citizens, consumers, and other businesses don't stand up to confront these injustices.

Europeans do care, do speak up, and now, as a German, you can buy an unlocked iPhone for a €999 premium and use any one of your preferred service providers by simply popping in your SIM card. Granted, a standardized GSM world offers more switching freedom anyway over the current CDMA/GSM US mess, but beyond these fundamental dysfunctional issues, the unlocked German iPhone development is perhaps more of a sign of a society that cares to be involved.

With the US LBS market tapped out (in terms of Carrier cooperation and on-deck placements) you have four remaining choices as a developer aspiring to set-up business in Europe (the next LBS frontier (again)). 

1. Use existing Carrier Cell-ID systems (these have been in place for about 7 years), reduce yourself in an exhaustive on-deck brownose act, and build your apps around poor accuracy with gross network-inefficiencies 
2. Wait for SUPL (you'd probably run out of operational cash if you did this)
3. Go off deck, D2C, and couple any bluetooth-enabled handset with clunky GPS-puck aftermarket accessories [it's ugly, but Jentro, Webraska, and others have done well with it]
4. Use a Blackberry, go off-deck, or convince a Carrier your RIM app is worth an on-deck placement

Number four is the only free (i.e. liberated) option - a testament to RIM's developer-friendly approach and commitment to GPS in an open and accessible device environment independent of Carrier control (except when explicitly told to disable it).  Trimble Outdoors recently chose option four to deploy three of their outdoor products.  The Blackberry's available in Europe are not exactly the hard gear Trimble would typically use, but with the business freedom offered by RIM to deploy, why not exersize this choice!         

Socialight's volunteered views to psfk for their work in enabling UK cross-carrier Cell-ID Location cooperation needed for Mobile Social Networking, highlights the first rule non-exclusive need for LBS wares to traverse networks. Case in point—traffic transparency that we see today in the US and globally for SMS and MMS, but lacking for Location traffic.

For those unfamiliar with this UK Location history, carriers gathered together, identified a cooperative need for wholesale, and decided to collectively expose their data at different prices. What followed was an explosive build of start-ups launching what each marketed as cross-carrier LBS 'partnerships' and wholesale pricing claims towards innovation. Due credit however in reality belongs to Parliament and advocates, rather than to app providers still piggy-backing on the accomplishment. 

The below is a sample output of the initial effort, which today now seems like a bloated set of pricing for a commodity - one which US carriers still resist to offer up collectively. 

O2			Vodafone
Monthly Volume	Transaction Price		Monthly Volume	Transaction Price
0 - 100K	£0.075		0 - 100K	£0.088
100K - 250K	£0.065		100K - 250K	£0.075
250K - 500K	£0.055		250K - 500K	£0.069
500K - 1M	£0.045		500K - 1M	£0.063
T-Mobile			Orange
Monthly Volume	Transaction Price		Monthly Volume	Transaction Price
0 - 100K	£0.095		0 - 100K	£0.062
100K - 250K	£0.085		100K - 250K	£0.060
250K - 500K	£0.075		250K - 500K	£0.058
500K - 1M	£0.065		500K - 1M	£0.055

The SiRF Location 2.0 Summit last week deserves additional mention. It was a well-organized set of panels high in content and low in company marketing spin. One of the big macro themes of the conference was defining measurable benchmarks or challenges that need to be cleared for the broader LBS space to finally reach it's true potential. One area of discussion involved the key challenges still confronting LBS developers today. I wanted to throw out my top 4 list.

(1) Privacy. This is still one of the first hurdles to offering any location-aware service. Everyone knows it but few have it right. It will continue to be an point of strong focus after recent social networking child safety press. I would not be surprised if the majority of proposed LBS apps today are blocked from launch by carrier legal departments (for good reason). As an industry and in partnership, acceptable location privacy standards must be defined, supported and embedded in location access technologies. The CTIA and other wireless leadership groups are working through best practices; it remains to be seen how quickly carriers and vendors adopt these recommended policies.

(2) Location Cost. This continues to be a significant challenge to the launch of high frequency location-aware applications. The easy out is to claim the carrier's are charging too much for access to location information. The likely answer is more complex than that. I believe one of the largest reasons location is so costly today is initial location deployments were motivated by E911 requirements, bringing along a cost structure and complexity of implementation that is not required for the majority of commercial LBS apps. Hopefully, with the growing movement towards user plane and IP location solutions, location information will approach the ubiquity and cost of current DNS services. To date, mobile carriers have selected the same vendor to provide both emergency and commercial LBS infrastructure in general. Carriers separating the procurement of emergency and commercial location is one option that could reduce the cost of commercial location information.

(3) Mobile Device Fragmentation. Anyone that has built a mobile app has struggled to develop for and QA multiple handset form factors, seemingly random J2ME implementation bugs, and the challenges of getting users to download a mobile app. Some carrier environments are better than others (i.e. BREW), however the vast majority of handsets today present extreme challenges for an end user interested in paying for, downloading and running any new app. As a developer, it is a struggle to address a large customer base given the fragmentation of devices by carrier, network technology, vendor, mobile OS, etc. These challenges alone can explain the difference in $ market size of the PC software vs. mobile software industries. This is not a location specific challenge, but the device barrier is multiplied again by the varying levels of location API support from device to device, and carrier to carrier. This will not get better until carriers and device OEMs adopt more consistent and stringent requirements for mobile app runtimes and location API support. Nokia, Apple, soon Google, other smartphone vendors and (the hope of) mobile Linux appear to be targeting simplifying development across their mobile platforms. However, it will take some time to filter down to feature phones, and will continue to be a significant barrier to the broader adoption of LBS apps (or any mobile apps for that matter).

(4) Location Accuracy & Availability. Different location apps require different levels of location accuracy. The prevalence and availability of high accuracy A-GPS has clearly motivated strong interest in navigation services of late. However, there is a wide range of location accuracy when considering A-GPS to Cell-ID. For example, mobile social networking in general can make due with block level location accuracy (intersection of streets, in-between Cell-ID and A-GPS). Many social uses of location are also challenged due to weak GPS signal reception in urban or indoor areas. Availability of different levels of location granularity (and hopefully at different costs) would be a big boon to LBS developers. It is unclear how this will evolve since some of the strongest proponents of mobile LBS are directly vested in deploying A-GPS. LBS developers will need the support of both carriers and vendors to provide a broader set of location accuracies and to ensure availability across all environments.

There are obviously more challenges that the mobile LBS industry is facing. Working to solve these 4 would be a great start.