As airwaves become crowded with apps and chatter, government needs to preserve lanes for public safety and emergencies.

By Bob Hunsberger, CEO, NetMotion Wireless

Hunsberger distinguishes niceties and necessities. Photo: NetMotion Wireless.

I have been active in the wireless industry since the mid 1980s and privileged to witness one of the most transformative periods in the history of modern communications. Wireless technology has advanced in countless ways in recent decades, but there has always been, and will always be, one fundamental truth. Spectrum matters.

There has been a great deal of talk lately about the impact of consumer wireless devices, particularly smart phones, on our mobile networks.  Many of us enjoy using wireless data networks to access video and other bandwidth intensive applications as we go about our day.

There also is concern that these applications will bring networks to their knees.  As we debate the proper allocation of spectrum –essentially the right to transmit signals over electromagnetic wavelengths, and the scarcest resource in wireless technology – it makes sense to consider some of the benefits that mobility brings to us all, and how mobile broadband applications improve our lives in ways that we might not consider.

While enabling consumers to use high-bandwidth applications on their devices is a nicety, providing millions of mobile field workers with next-generation mobile broadband access is a necessity. For many people, the term “mobile professional” conjures up images of consumer handsets, but there are millions of mobile workers who are far more reliant on wireless networks to do their jobs.

Public safety trumps your mobile Facebook app. Really.

Police officers, firefighters, EMTs, visiting nurses, utility workers, cable and telecommunication technicians, claims adjusters, and countless others rely on wireless communications to serve our communities everyday.

Their needs transcend the consumer entertainment pursuits and should be front-and-center in the discussion about spectrum policy.

Over the years, these businesses and agencies have resolved many of the technological hurdles associated with providing wireless data communications to their field personnel, including: security, remote policy management of devices and applications, application persistence, cross-network roaming, quality of service and numerous others.

However, they all remain constrained because a lack of spectrum prevents the deployment of high-bandwidth applications that could reshape service delivery in the United States.

What's the frequency, FCC?

The Federal Communications Commission should adopt a spectrum policy that serves the broad interest of businesses and government agencies and positions the United States as the leader in mobile broadband. With a broader allocation of spectrum for mobile broadband applications, the opportunities would be profound. For example:

• Law enforcement agencies could routinely use real-time video surveillance and monitoring from patrol vehicles, instead of relying on primitive taping systems.
• EMTs with video-equipped systems could conduct additional on-scene wireless video consultations from an accident location with doctors at a hospital.
• Emergency responders, such as local Red Cross Disaster Action Teams (DAT), FEMA personnel, or the National Guard, could upload images and data directly from the field.
• Utility workers responding to power, water, or gas outages could count on downloading schematics onsite, saving precious time and resources.
• Delivery personnel could run multiple applications simultaneously on their wireless PDAs or notebooks to check inventory, route locations or place order fulfillment.
• Mobile clinics-on-wheels that deliver healthcare services to underserved communities could reliably communicate remotely with larger medical facilities and transmit X-rays and other high-bandwidth images in real-time.
• Insurance adjustors could capture and record additional video footage onsite and send information to centralized databases for processing.

As envisioned by the Administration’s current broadband stimulus efforts, entire underserved towns or communities could receive true broadband access for the first time by using wireless technology. Such access would benefit businesses, municipal departments, schools, and individual consumers in areas where service providers have opted not to provide DSL, cable, or fiber infrastructure because of cost.

As a businessman, I expect my smartphone and laptop to work while I am on-the-move. When they do not, it is an inconvenience. For the millions of mobile workers in public safety and field service jobs, the implications are usually far more serious.

In October of this year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “I believe that the biggest threat to the future of mobile in America is the looming spectrum crisis.”  We should adopt a spectrum policy that serves the broad interest of businesses and government agencies and positions the United States as the leader in mobile broadband. This requires giving our mobile field workers the spectrum they need to run these mobile broadband applications and get their job done.

Bob Hunsberger is CEO of NetMotion Wireless, a leading developer of mobile software that enables the mobile workers to remotely access their corporate networks.

(AAPL) (HPQ) (AMD) (INTC) (RIMM) (MOT) (T) (MSFT) (GOOG)

(AAPL) (GOOG) (T) (YHOO) (RIMM)

A sign of things to come? In its Atlanta stores, AT&T is selling the Acer Aspire One for $49 with a 2-year wireless data plan and DSL signup. Image: Acer

PC retail is in rough shape again, and it's about to get rougher.

Evidence of hardship is everywhere. Hewett-Packard (HPQ), the world's largest computer maker, says it's selling about the same number of computers as a year ago, but getting a lot less money for them – sales dropped 19% in the most recent quarter. When Apple (AAPL) reports earnings in July, analysts expect Mac sales to be off as well. And while Intel (INTC) says it's hopeful that its chip sales are bottoming out, chip revenues are lower than they have been in years.

Why are things so bad? The easy answer is that PCs cost hundreds of dollars, and consumers don't have a lot of extra cash floating around these days. Unless your computer has been struck by lightning and given up the ghost, chances are you're holding off on purchasing a new one. One tech industry executive recently confided to me that it's not just U.S. consumers thinking this way – the entire global PC market headed off a cliff at roughly the same time late last year, forcing computer makers to cut workers and rethink their strategies.

In the midst of all that, wireless carriers are poised to shake up PC retail. AT&T (T) announced this week that beginning this summer, it will begin selling small, low-cost Windows XP netbooks from Acer, Dell (DELL), LG and Lenovo in all 2,200 of its U.S. stores. (In case you're counting, that's about twice as many locations as Best Buy (BBY) has.) Rival Verizon (VZ) has already begun selling an HP netbook.

Why buy a computer from a phone company? Price, of course. Sign a two-year wireless data contract with AT&T, for example, and you get $50 knocked off the price of a netbook. Get home DSL service too and save $100. In Atlanta, where AT&T has been testing the deals, the cheapest Acer netbook sells for $49 after rebates.

Sales there have been brisk enough that AT&T execs are confident that cheap laptops will lure customers nationwide the same way cheap phones have in the past. And the deals will only get better: It's easy to imagine that in a year or two, customers who sign up for two years of voice and data service (at a cost north of $100 per month) will leave a store with both a "free" phone and a "free" computer. Exciting, huh?

While this is great news for netbook-loving consumers, it's a downright scary prospect for PC makers. If the phone business is any guide, carriers will fuel demand for the cheapest and least profitable computers out there, and put pressure on traditional PC stores to sell low-price PCs. And that will force tech companies to work harder to lure shoppers toward more powerful (and more expensive) hardware.

That's not an impossible upsell, as the iPhone and BlackBerry (RIMM) have proven in the phone business. But it's yet another challenge the PC gang doesn't exactly need right now.

Cisco CIO Rebecca Jacoby

Even in these tough economic times, tech giant Cisco offers employees some pretty sweet benefits: Employees can visit on-campus doctors and dietitians, drop off dry cleaning, or get an oil change, and now they can pick the kind of computer they want to use at work.

That's right – Cisco has started letting workers choose from a handful of laptops, including an Apple MacBook Pro. Only don't call the program a perquisite. Rebecca Jacoby, Cisco's (CSCO, Fortune 500) top information technology officer, says the initiative, launched last year, should actually save the company money. The fact that employees involved in the pilot program are deliriously happy with it – Jacoby and her peers even get love notes from satisfied road warriors – is a bonus.

Of course, that new freedom requires companies and employees alike to make sacrifices. Since Cisco began offering a choice of machines last June, roughly a quarter of employees have opted for Macs, yet they are pretty much on their own for tech support. (An in-house online community for Mac users gets a little help from Jacoby's department.) Cisco, in turn, has to make a slightly higher upfront investment for the workers who want Macs, which are pricier than PCs.

Full story

(AAPL) (MSFT) (CSCO) (INTC) (DELL) (VMW) (CTX) (AZN) (AMD)

follow me on twitter

Since Intel first began cooking up semiconductors, it has taken great pride in its in-house manufacturing chops. If a chip carried the Intel brand, you could be sure it was created in an Intel fab.

Today the pride is the same, but the methods are changing. The Silicon Valley chipmaker on Monday announced a deal that will allow Taiwanese contract manufacturer TSMC to make custom versions of the Atom chip, the first time it's giving another company access to some of its chip cores. How big a deal is this? It's a little like George Lucas agreeing to let someone else make Star Wars movies. (Judging by the most recent ones, that might not be such a bad idea.)

It's not a decision Intel (INTC) came to lightly. For years, companies like TSMC (TSM) have begged Intel for the chance to make chips based on cutting-edge Intel architecture – and Intel has told them to get lost. It was obvious why other chip companies longed to build Intel chips; they serve as the brains of roughly 80% of the world's computers, and oh yeah, they pull in a tidy profit in the process. But why would Intel ever share its secret sauce? By doing everything in-house, the company has grown into one of just a few mega-brands in tech.

In today's environment, though, Intel needs TSMC. What for? In case you haven't noticed, the PC business isn't what it used to be. Technology research firm Gartner predicts that the industry will have its worst year ever, with worldwide shipments dropping 12%. (Until now, the worst decline on record was a 3% dip in 2001.) To keep growing, Intel needs to expand into new markets. Largely, that means mobile: Everything that has a screen and uses battery power is a potential candidate to get Intel inside, including the GPS device in your car, the iPhone in your pocket, and the Nintendo DS in your kid's backpack.

To get that new mobile business, however, Intel knows it has to change some things – including the way it makes chips. Here's why: When it comes to mobile devices, the Nintendos (NTDOF) and Apples (AAPL) of the world don't play by the old PC rules. Instead, they use customizable chip designs from a company called ARM (ARMH).

It turns out, customization and flexibility is a big deal in the mobile world. Intel's chip manufacturing may be the most advanced in the world, but many mobile customers would rather use a chip architecture that lets them tweak the capabilities. (That's why Apple last year bought chip design shop PA Semi for a reported $278 million; word is the engineers are working on custom chip designs for future iPhones and iPods.)

Which brings us back to Monday's announcement. It just so happens that many companies get their custom ARM-based designs manufactured by – you guessed it – TSMC. So by allowing TSMC to make some Atom chips, Intel's sending the message that to be a player in the mobile market, it's prepared to play by the mobile rules, and give customers more flexibility than it ever has before.

This doesn't mean Intel is backing away from its role as a manufacturer. Intel will continue to make chips itself – it recently announced plans to spend $7 billion to enhance its own manufacturing capabilities – and it will place strict limits on how TSMC can use its Atom cores. Any customer who wants to customize Atom will still have to deal with Intel. This deal with TSMC adds a new flexibility to Intel's model, and in the process, Intel also gets access to TSMC's processes, intellectual property, libraries and design flows – the ingredients that let customers tweak their chips.

Could Intel have offered that flexibility without TSMC's help? Not anytime soon. In a way, TSMC is the perfect partner for Intel's needs. Because it's a foundry that makes chips for a legion of customers, TSMC is like a short-order chef set up to make custom meals. Intel, on the other hand, is like a gourmet chef set up specifically to whip up his own menu.

It will be a while before we see whether these two chefs can work well together. Both companies said they're eager for TSMC to start serving up Atom chips, but there are still a lot of business and product details to work out.

And then there are the cultural issues that are sure to arise. Just think: All its life, Intel's been top chef in its own restaurant. It may find that working with a partner feels like too many cooks in the kitchen. (INTC) (AMD) (TSM) (AAPL) (QCOM) (NOK) (MOT) (NVDA)

Peggy Johnson, executive vice president of the Americas and India for Qualcomm, got a lesson on wireless from a Masai warrior. Photo: Qualcomm

While on safari in Kenya recently, Qualcomm executive Peggy Johnson got a fresh sense of how cell phones are changing every corner of the world.

Johnson's guide, a Masai warrior, explained that he grew up in a family of nomads and attended a boarding school during his high school years – so he inevitably spent much of his vacation breaks trying to track down his highly mobile parents. That changed when he and his parents got cell phones. He could simply call them to find out where they were, transforming his breaks from detective work into family time.

I heard this story during a recent visit to Qualcomm (QCOM) headquarters in San Diego, and couldn't stop thinking about it. Put aside for a moment the odd mental image of the statuesque Masai carrying cell phones – yet more evidence that these days, everyone's got one – and the fact that mobile chipmaker Qualcomm has a vested interest in promoting the idea of a wireless world. The story is a shining example of why, even during these tough economic times, wireless growth isn't stopping.

That's true both in developing economies – India broke its new-subscriber record in January, with 15.4 million new signups – and in developed ones. AT&T (T) executives said this week that they're going to spend $1 billion this year expanding its global network capabilities, and a chunk of that money will go towards improving wireless service in the U.S.

Why? Because people are still spending money on wireless. Yes, the industry is taking a hit – handset leader Nokia (NOK) is trimming its workforce, and equipment makers like Cisco (CSCO) are getting pinched as well. But unlike premium cable and fancy dinners, cell phones (even the data plans) are staking their claims in our lives as necessities, not mere luxuries.

If you're that Masai warrior, your cell phone isn't just another communication device. It's your way home. (AAPL) (INTC) (VZ) (S)