I gave a presentation on engineering to a local high school class a few weeks ago.  It was a brief explanation on engineering and potential jobs in various industries.

It was the first time I’d been in a high school since I graduated well over a decade ago.  My how times have changed.

At first I was in awe.  There were electronic chalkboards in every room.  The teacher writes on the white board with a special pen, and a computer documents everything scribed during a session.

There are laptops abound, high-tech digital telephones in each room that connect to anyone, or any room at any time.  There are electronic forms to fill out when visiting the building, and electronic surveillance and security all over.

After soaking up all the technology, I asked my buddy who teaches the class what a new teacher makes these days.  I won’t give the exact figure, but if I told you it would (and should) piss you off.

Any increase in budget over the last 5 years or so has gone to improving the resources, upgrading the buildings, and adding technology at every corner.

Who missed out?  The most valuable and overlooked resource in the building.

The teachers themselves.

The wireless telecom industry is very intriguing to me.  I’ve written about AT&T and Verizon before, and more specifically about the battle for subscribers and the expansion of wireless data network infrastructure.

AT&T has been growing fairly extensively over the last several years primarily due to the cult like popularity of the iPhone, which AT&T has had exclusive rights to from the initial iPhone release.

Verizon is on the verge of releasing the “Droid” Android phone which I hear is garnering great pre-release reviews.

As I’ve mentioned in my previous posts, wireless providers are running out of marketing gimmicks to attract new subscribers, at least as it pertains to phone costs.  Carriers are practically giving away high tech and very capable smart phones a la the Blackberry and make their money on the monthly plans.  So with the cost of the hardware already at zero, the only other front to wage war is on the plans themselves.

This is where Verizon, specifically, is starting to reveal it’s elitist mentality.

In an article over at The Wall Street Journal, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said that while T-Mobile rolled out new low cost plans over the last weekend, his company had no intentions of doing so.

Verizon does have great coverage, and for those who need to be connected anytime all the time, they may be willing to pay a premium for the service.  The average Joe I suspect, will still go with the low cost provider.  Coverage at the big carriers is so widespread and evolving so quickly that service and coverage are starting to come to parity.  With that in mind, the last competitive advantage is coming down to price.

And Verizon is losing.

To me, it seems a bit arrogant that Verizon doesn’t want to respond to T-Mobile’s new pricing plans.  They’re losing the market to AT&T through the iPhone popularity, and while the Droid may be great, it’s going to come at a hefty price.

And I don’t mean for the phone.

Back in the beginning of 2007, inspired by Futurist David Houle, I wrote about my vision for a new medium on which printed media would morph into electronic media, yet still retain the look and feel of printed news.

Well, another step has been made towards that vision, and it’s taking its roots in advertising.

Entertainment Weekly is taking on an experiment by which super-thin video screens will be embedded into pages of their magazines.  Prominent television personalities will grace the screens in advertisements, predominantly for Pepsi and CBS.

Americhip has developed the technology, and has developed many advanced marketing strategies that entice all five senses of the customer.  A strategy the company likes to call “multisensorizing”.

The cost of such a video-laced magazine ad hasn’t been disclosed, nor has the market for the technological magazines been specified.  However, New York and L.A. audiences are on the radar to participate.

I can’t imagine that the experiment will be cheap, but cost is largely relative, and if CBS and Pepsi see a return on their investment, we may end up seeing more of these digital screens in magazines in the very near future.

This is just the beginning.

As I mentioned in my post back in 2007, I foresee these digital screens growing into pages of their own, fed content through the Internet, and pushing the paper delivery boy out of business.

The technology is here, and by the fact that we’re going to get a taste of the technology in a magazine, even in limited distribution, tells me the price of the technology is becoming more and more attractive.

If you happen to encounter a copy of the magazine with the video ads, I’d like to hear your opinion on the experience!

I stumbled upon a new service from the end-all-be-all Google that may be the next step in the evolution of mobile communication.

Effectively, Google Voice merges traditional cell phone and land line service in to voice over IP (VOIP) data streams, and then back into cell phone or land line technology, and it sounds pretty cool.

Once you are invited to use the service, you select a Google Voice number which could have an area code from anywhere in the United States.  You can then set up Google Voice to ring any phone you want when someone dials that number.  For instance, when you dial my Google Voice phone number, I can set the program up to ring my cell phone, office phone or home phone… but what’s really cool is that I can set it up to ring all three at the same time.

So I could be at the office and leave the cell phone at home and you’d still be able to reach me.

Some other impressive features are the transcribed voice mail (Google Voice will email you a transcript of the voice mail), the ability to play voice mail back through a web interface, and you can even screen or block calls.  Google will mark annoying telemarketers as Spam, much like they handle spam in Gmail.

The service is still in its infancy, and you still have to be invited, much like Gmail originally.  However, I suspect that Google Voice will morph into a service that will compete with Skype and give your cell phone company a run for its money.  What’s neat about Google Voice is that you only need an Internet connection to use it, meaning you’d only need a data plan on your smart phone, and not necessarily a voice plan…

If you’ve got experience using Google Voice, I’d love to hear about it.

More information here.

I wrote a few days ago about CREE (CREE: chart, web, Y!), a company that makes LED lighting components, including the lights themselves.

I feel that LED lights aren’t too far away from replacing incandescent and mercury containing CFL bulbs, and that products are already showing up on local store shelves, although prices have yet to come in at an economic range.

I’ve been perusing the companies 2008 annual report over the last couple days, and studied the financial numbers from the last several years.

Annual Revenue

As of the end of June, 2008, total revenues were on the rise to a level just shy of $500 million, with a 33.6% gross margin on revenues.

LED products (LED chips, components and lighting solutions) made up a total of 84% of total revenues, materials (SiC wafers, etc) made up just under 6% and power and RF products (power and RF switches) made up 4%.  The rest of the revenues came in the form of contracts with government agencies.

At the end of FY08, the company had $371 million in cash and marketable securities on hand and $408 million in working capital.

Diluted incomer per share was $0.36 at the end of FY08, which was down considerably from previous years, the high of which came in 2005 at $1.38 per share.

The company continued its streak of zero debt, a statistic maintained since as far back as 2004 or earlier.

The Most Recent Quarter

Naturally a lot has changed since the end of FY08 (nearly a year ago) and a FY09 report is due out in the next few months.

For Q3 ‘09, revenues of $131 million were 5% higher than the same quarter of 2008, but not surprisingly, down 11% compared to Q2 ‘09.

Operating cash flow for the third quarter came in at $49.9 million and the company generated $40.5 million of free cash flow.

The company built upon its cash reserves, increasing cash and investments to $404.9 million, and has maintained zero debt through the third quarter of fiscal 2009.

Recent News

On May 26th of this year, CREE announced that they are raising their financial targets for the fourth quarter of 2009, which is a pleasant headline to be reading in this economic environment.

The company says that the increase in targets is due to stronger LED component bookings for lighting-related applications such as laptops, displays, etc.

The company forecasts LED product sales to continue to grow into FY 2010 and will continue to spend money on R&D to make that forecast come true.

Corner Office Comments

I am more intrigued with this company the more I read.  The financial numbers look strong, and revenues have been maintained at healthy levels even in a down economy.  This could be a function of the company offering products that equate to energy savings with long product life cycles, making their products attractive to cities and municipalities (among other entities) trying to cut operating expenses when budgets are shrinking.

The zero debt is a major selling point, and the fact that the company has over $400 million in cash to work with makes the deal even sweeter.

I think this is a strong company with a promising product line.  They already market their LR6 downlight product that will replace 65 Watt flood-type recessed lights in your everyday residential application, and I suspect a replacement for traditional round incandescent bulbs is right around the corner.

I see prices coming down as LED lights gain traction in the market (LED’s have already replaced filament type Christmas lights) and CREE should be well positioned to take advantage of the next big technology shift in such a widely used market as home and business lighting applications.

The stock price has been fluctuating for the last several months, but the trend has been overwhelming positive since the beginning of 2009.

I’ll start buying some shares on the next downswing and I think the long term prospects for the stock is very promising.

It’s tough for me to say anything negative about my Verizon Wireless (VZ: chart, web, Y!) service.

It’s always available and it’s been years since I’ve had a dropped call.  It even worked in the Caribbean when I was there on business early last year; so there is something to be said for “the network”.

The only complaint I have is the cost of the service itself in relation to the features provided.  For $59.99 per month (plus the $20 in taxes and fees) I get 550 minutes between my wife and I.  As I’ve mentioned before, we don’t even come close to using those minutes.

I suppose you could say I’m eager to see how these down economic times will shape not just technology, but pricing in the very near future.

I’d love to have something like a Blackberry, and Verizon would practically give me a device for free.  But the $70+ service is really driving me away, and that doesn’t include the additional money for the traditional cell phone service for my wife.

In a fairly recent issue of BusinessWeek, the big three in wireless service here in the United States are seeing competition accelerate as buyers of pricey services and phones have tightened their belts.

The article mentioned that the battle is heating up in wireless data service, and the desire to grow the market while bringing down prices.  AT&T (VZ: chart, web, Y!) for instance has an 8.6% share in wireless data, compared to 16.4% for Sprint (S: chart, web, Y!) and Verizon’s 10.9%.

Verizon tends to be a bit hamstrung by 45% stakeholder Vodafone (VOD: chart, web, Y!)  (popular in Europe) and Sprint has been facing a recurring challenge in attracting and retaining customers.  Service has been spotty, customer support lacking, and product lines have been thin.

AT&T on the other hand holds a 100% stake in wireless and has its fingers in a lot of different telecom markets (a la AT&T UVerse).  They’ve got a decent amount of cash and low capital requirements to maintain their infrastructure.

The Apple (AAPL: chart, web, Y!)  iPhone has almost reached cult status, and I have to admit, I’m not much of an Apple guy, but I love the idea of an iPhone (again, besides the service price) and own a iPod.

I’m going to continue watching how the AT&T vs. Verizon vs. Sprint battle plays out, but I think if prices start coming down and consumer spending starts going up, it may be worth buying some shares of AT&T.

I’ve been thinking about energy lately, or more specifically how to save some in my house.  I made a switch to CFL light bulbs in many cases, but I think I’m going back to good old incandescents.

I can’t use CFL’s in cases where I want to use a dimmer, like over the vanity in our master bathroom, and in the basement where we dim some lights for good movie viewing.

CFL’s are also a bit inconvenient in that you can’t just throw them out with the rest of the garbage due to the fact that they contain mercury.  And that’s another major point; they contain mercury.  If you break a CFL bulb, you have to ventilate the room, scoop up the debris and put it in an air tight container.

Some people will argue that there isn’t enough mercury in each bulb to really harm you, but my position is that if there’s too much mercury to throw out in the trash, there’s too much mercury in them, period.

Another alternative?

LED lights.  These things are amazing, and they’re showing up everywhere.  From big screen TV’s to laptops (they’ve been around in laptops for a while), to the red lights in stop lights…  They’re solid state bulbs with no moving parts and no volatile or poisonous gases.  Most of them will last as many as 20,000 hours or so, which means I’d have to replace them when my 5 month old son graduates from high school.

The one drawback is that they’re still pricey, and the traditional 40 to 60 Watt replacements haven’t matured quite yet, although you can already buy the “flood” type bulbs at Home Depot.

An investment of two types…

If LED lights can last as long as advertised and can come down in price quite a ways, I’d certainly entertain the thought of replacing my CFL’s and incandescents with straight LED’s.  I look at is an investment with a return of lower energy costs, both in the form of direct electrical consumption and thermal savings (did I mention LED’s don’t produce much heat?).

In addition, I could also make an investment in the company that develops LED’s as well.  A company like CREE (CREE: chart, web, Y!)) would be a good bet, and they’re making advances in LED technology nearly as fast as prices on technology are dropping.

I’ll be researching CREE over the next several days, as I think this could be a company worth investing in that produces a product that’s worth buying.

One of most amazing things about nearly all of Europe is their vast railroad infrastructure.  I took a high speed train from Frankfurt to Seigburg, Germany, topping out at a breathtaking 300 km/hr, or about 180 miles per hour.

To top it all off, their rail infrastructure is almost completely electric.  No diesel is sacrificed as it is here in the United States.

So why can’t we do that?

In the Midwest, there are light rail proposals being thrown around annually, gaining marginal traction with taxpayers. The problem typically revolves around ‘who ends up paying how much for what’.  And I can see the point.

I surely don’t want to pay for a local rail system I don’t use and can’t foresee any return on.

In my opinion, we need a national high speed rail system implemented from coast to coast, boarder to boarder.  Unfortunately the government would have to get involved to help define the standards (you don’t want one system on one gauge of track and another on a different gauge).  Ideally though, the infrastructure would be privately developed with government subsidies.

Think about it, going from New York to Chicago, or Chicago to Dallas via Kansas City or St. Louis.  Make that a day trip!

I believe that once such a system is defined, more local, light rail systems can take shape with much less risk to the bottom line.

If you live in a city with light rail, or even a country with high speed rail, do you see the system as an asset?

Google recently released it’s new browser in an effort to compete with Microsoft and Firefox for your internet perusal tool of choice.  

I have to admit, I’m a bit of an early adopter, so I jumped at the chance to download “Chrome” in beta format. 

Chrome appears minimalist by design, but the advertising super-giant claims that the browser is faster, safer and “easier” than its counterparts.

So far, the new browser does appear to be faster than loading the same pages in Firefox, and considerably faster than Internet Explorer, although I really don’t have the means to quantify that statement.

A few features I like about the new browser: Dynamic tabs, application shortcuts, and what they’re calling “incognito mode“.  The dynamic tabs feature allows you drag individual tabs out of the browser into its own window.  At first I thought this was kind of “gimmicky”, but then I realized that I could launch two instances of Chrome side-by-side on my monitor, and move tabs from one pane to the other.

The incognito mode is neat because it doesn’t save any information (i.e. cookies, passwords, history, search information, etc) on your computer.  It’s not terribly convenient since you have to open a separate instance of the browser, and it’s not something to use all the time since it won’t store cookies to the sites you want to have stored in local memory.

With all the data tracing going on these days, one really has no idea what the information you’re blasting through the ‘net will really be used for, much less what you blindly allow to be stored on your computer.  Incognito mode would be nice for public computer access though…

Application shortcuts allow you to store shortcuts to internet-based applications right on your desktop; although I’m not sure how this is much different than creating a link to an application.

Chrome is taking a bit of getting used to, and there are a few quirks about the program that I’m still trying to figure out.

Tried Chrome? What do you think?

The Story Behind Chrome

I’m happy to say that I’m not addicted to e-mail. Or at least I don’t think I am.

However, I’ve come to realize that communicating through email is preferred to picking up the telephone by a fairly large margin. In fact, I actually prefer it as it lets me keep a written record of communication, not necessarily for legal purposes, but for organizational purposes.

During a typical day, I get so focused on the job at hand that if you want me to do something, you better send me an email. Why? Because in the process of verbally adding a task to my list, you’ve probably interrupted the process of closing another one out. Chances are, I didn’t stop long enough to divert my brain from what it’s focused on to what you’re requesting of it. Consequently, the response is: “Sure thing, could you send that to me in an email?”

Since most of my work occurs away from my desk, my laptop is dedicated to receiving task requests and discriminately prioritizing the requests in chronological order. It’s a beautiful system I have set up, and it works rather well. Unless of course you’re the one that has so rudely interrupted me and asked me to add one more thing to my list, thereby doing an end run on my system!

Lucky for me, my company has not found it necessary to issue my a BlackBerry. I consider myself lucky because I see the crack-berry effect on those who do have a PDA strapped to their hip. They just never turn it off!

Weekend Work

I’ve made it a practice not to check work email on the weekend, and at least if I do, not to respond to any.

It seems that management at some companies are seeing the evil ways of the email, and are striving to add clarity to the line between work and personal life. In fact, employees at PricewaterhouseCoopers caught logging in to their email system on weekends are met with a popup window indicating that it is, in fact, the weekend, and not to overload yourself with email.

I think it’s a good policy. After all, if you can’t get it done between Monday and Friday, what’s another couple days?

What say you? Are you addicted to email? Any organization tips?

I’m continuing to see how television is going to be a thing of the past. Well, not television in the broad sense, more the way television is delivered. Right now, my television programing, my internet connection, and my phone service are delivered over the same pair of copper lines. The same lines that just 5 years ago could only deliver voice service.

It used to be that you had a twisted pair running to your house for telephone and a coax cable running to the house for television and internet (of course before that, it was just rabbit ears…).

I am starting to see how digital data compression is going to open up the world of telecom to even faster, cheaper service. In fact, the internet as we know it today will probably become obsolete.

The latest breakthrough is coming from Cern, the particle physics group that created the world-wide-web (Al Gore takes credit for it, but the really smart folks actually made it come true), and are calling it “the grid”. The grid could will provide the power needed to transmit holographic images or offer high-def video conference calls for the price of a local phone call.

It’s all about speed.

David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University and a leading figure in the grid project, believes grid technologies could “revolutionise” society. “With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine,” he said. -Source

With speeds like this, you’ll be able to transmit and download full albums within seconds, and streaming full length, Hi-Def movies will be common place. Couple this with high-speed wireless networks and you’ll literally be able to whip your TV out of your pocket and take the morning news with you on your morning commute.

The technology is here, and it will make current telecom companies rethink how they deliver their product.

Sprint (S: chart, web, Y!) has been down in the dumps lately. Actually for the last several years (or more accurately since they merged with Nextel). They just wrote down $29 billion, or the equivalent of that same Nextel merger.

Sprint is a poorly run company, not just at the executive level, but all across the board (although new CEO Dan Hesse is making a valiant effort to turn that around). Their marketing department never really sold the Nextel technology, and little money went into preserving the customer base Nextel generated. On top of that, Sprint didn’t spend enough time, effort and money keeping their own customers.

Sprint took a massive nose dive on the write down news, and closing last Friday at a measly $7.11 per share. So the question becomes, are they really worth $7.11 or was the dive on negative news an over reaction further fueled by negative overall market sentiment?

Additionally, the low share price could put enough lip stick on this rode rough, put away wet, stock that it looks attractive as a takeover bid by a competitor like Verizon (VZ: chart, web, Y!) or AT&T (T: chart, web, Y!).

If an acquisition were to be in the works, the take over bid would have to account for about $20 billion in debt, which would only serve to increase the cost per customer. On top of that, the differences in Sprints networks as compared to the competition would require some infrastructure modification which would be capital intensive. On the other hand, Sprint does hold the WiMax initiative, which could be attractive to a company like Verizon, or even Comcast (CMCSA: chart, web, Y!).

Right now, it takes little effort on Verizon or AT&T’s part to harvest subscribers from a downtrodden Sprint, which is effectively a free trip past “GO” to collect $200. So why would anyone want to buy Sprint when they can just take customers free of charge? Well while the infrastructure would need modification to provide commonality, the company could be bought well below the net asset value, and integrated just like Cingular was integrated into AT&T.

For now, I’ll sit back and see what happens.

Sprint is hardly a good buy right now, especially with so many other companies out there with stronger fundamentals at a great discount weighed down by flailing market sentiment.

An interesting consequence of a Microsoft/Yahoo merger would funnel nearly three fourths if the U.S. email accounts through one huge data processing monster. What this means is that email accounts and a host of other personal data would be held by one company; something I suspect the U.S. government might squawk at.

Interestingly enough, 46% of internet users in the U.S. have email accounts run by Yahoo, Microsoft holds 27% and 29% use Google’s Gmail.

Personally, I’m not sure I’m crazy about having three quarters of the email accounts held by one company. In essence, there’s too much personal data being held in one place.

Then there’s the possibility of monetizing email. For instance, a Microsoft/Yahoo based email host could have the power to start charging money for every email sent or received; much like sending text messages through your cell phone provider.

I think the chances of this are actually fairly remote, and I’d hope the government would step in and regulate such a large, controlling stake. On the other hand, this could very well spark new innovation and new competition to add value to email… whatever that may be.

Personally I’m not crazy about a Microsoft/Yahoo deal, and I think Microsoft is taking advantage of a battered down market to gobble up competition.

Time will tell…

It was bound to happen (again). Today Verizon Wireless revealed new plans to offer a flat-rate unlimited calling plan. They say it is an effort to attract high end customers, which may be true, but I see it as a commoditization of the wireless industry.

The plan will cost $99 per month and offer up unlimited calling to anyone in the United States. Interestingly enough, AT&T trumped Verizon by announcing a similar deal for $0.99 per month more, but also eliminating any additional roaming charges.

It is clear to me that cell phones are becoming a commodity just like the old fashion predecessor, the land line, and that the economy of scale and competition is going to force prices down.

The revenue is going to shift from voice usage to data usage, which is good news for guys like me who just want voice capability.

“Voice is the foundation of our business, and will be an integral part of our offer,” said Mike Lanman, chief marketing officer for Verizon Wireless. “Data is clearly emerging as an increasing contributor…to our revenue stream.” -Source

I think this is a telling sign of how a free market will drive down prices. I started to see a glimpse of this when Verizon offered me a lower rate on an unpublicized plan that more closely matches my usage. They didn’t want me to leave the store and head off to a competitor, so they knocked $10 off my bill just to keep me happy…

Cell phone service will only get cheaper…

Last week I dropped by the Verizon Wireless store to snoop around a bit. My 2-year agreement was up, and my existing cell phone had taken a beating. In fact, the outer LCD display was cracked and non-functional from the time I put the phone in my pocket and then smashed my keys (in the same pocket) into the phone. Now I had options. Lots of options, and that is a good thing from a consumers standpoint.

At any rate, I had also been looking at my monthly cell usage. Between my wife and I, we rarely were using more than 200 anytime minutes per month, yet our plan allowed us 700 anytime minutes, and in return we paid about $85 per month after taxes and fees.

You get what you pay for, but don’t pay for something you don’t get.

As frequent readers of the Corner Office Blog know, I absolutely hate paying for something I don’t use. The way I saw it, I was paying for 500 minutes per month that I wasn’t using.

An online inquiry through the Verizon website returned an answer I really didn’t appreciate: “… sorry sir, you’re on the lowest cost family plan we offer.”

It is rarely fruitful to eArgue, and making a deal face to face is much more productive. So in addition to looking for a new phone, I was also looking for a new plan, and if that didn’t work out, a new cell provider.

Being polite will get you further…

I walked into the store, and the sharp dressed sales rep stepped right up to the plate. “What can I help you with today…” I’m looking for a new phone, and a new plan, and I explained why.

Naturally the sales rep tried to sell me a new phone first. Smart on his part: Get the customer to fall in love with something tangible, then talk money.

So I found a phone I liked, but was still willing to walk away from the whole deal if we couldn’t somehow my monthly costs.

After pounding through the computer for a few minutes, I got the same response as I did from the rep online; I’ve already got the lowest cost plan they offer. I was getting a bit aggravated, but I kept my cool and told him that I might have to go home and research the competition.

Sensing I was the type to walk right across the street to AT&T, he went and asked his boss if there was “Something we could do”. It turns out, there is a little-known plan hidden deep down in the computer for cases just like this. It’s called the Nationwide Loyalty Family Share plan, coming in at 550 minutes per month, and for $10 cheaper than the previous plan.

Interesting how they throw a loyalty plan at you to keep your business, isn’t it?

Sign me up.

It’s a step in the right direction. Instead of wanting “more for less”, I wanted “less for less”. While the 550 minutes per month is still overkill, the $10 reduction in monthly cost ($120 per year) helps.

So, if you’re looking to reduce your monthly cell phone bill, this might be a step in the right direction, if you’re a Verizon customer that is.

To be clear, if my wife and I were using the 700 minutes per month, I wouldn’t feel right about arguing for a lower cost plan that would still cover my usage. But if you’re not even coming close to maxing out your wireless plan, at least find out what your options are to pay for something more appropriate.

Ever heard of an ASUS Eee PC? Yeah, me either.

And the only reason I recognize the ASUS (short for ASUSTek, a Taiwanese company) name is because I looked into building my own desktop PC a while back. ASUS is one of the largest manufacturers of motherboards, found in Sony Playstations, Apple MacBooks, Dells, and even a few HP computers.

And by the way, they also make computers. Small ones. Real small ones.

The ASUS Eee PC has a 7″ screen, so it’s truly a portable computer, and sells for under $500. Its got about 1 gig of RAM and 8 gig of hard drive space. At first glance, this doesn’t sound like much, but that’s because the hard “drive” really isn’t a hard drive, it’s a flash drive.

What’s even cooler is that it doesn’t run on Windows, or run any windows programs for that matter. The operating system and other traditional software programs, like MS Word and Excel, and open source code. Eee runs Linux, which is an open source operating system, and comes standard with OpenOffice, the open source version of Word and Excel (MJ at dyslexicresearch.com explains more about Open Source).

ASUS isn’t a well-known consumer brand, unless of course you’re building your own PC, and the company just started selling them in late 2007. The expect to sell up to a half million units by March (Q1) of this year, and up to 5 million by 2009.

Apple and Dell should be worried, as they have been planning on coming out with their own flash drive mini laptops for quite a while. By the time they finally end up shipping a product, they will have already lost market share to Asus. On top of market timing, Apple and Dell certainly can’t appreciate the pricing pressure their motherboard provider is placing on their new gadgets.

So who’s the real winner in all this, aside from ASUS of course? Intel.

The ASUS Eee PC is powered by the 900 MHz Intel Celeron-M processor. More than that, Intel and ASUS have been buddy-buddy going way back to the 90’s when Intel was having problems with its own motherboards, and ASUS stepped in to help fix the flaw. Ever since then, Intel had a fond respect for the semi-competitive partnership.

So what’s in store for the futurEee?

Evidently, Intel is working on a new processor that will run so efficiently that the Eee won’t even require a fan; it will be completely solid state. You’re laptop will not so much as make a peep, much less a hummmm….

Check out an ASUS Eee Video review, below.

It seems that AT&T is no longer seeing the value of the pay phone.  The company announced today that its pay phones will be phased out over the next year. They declined to say how much revenue its pay-phone business generated, but the number is small and declining, after all, how can they compete with cell phones at $0.50 per call?

It’s interesting that a service long thought to be impossible to live without could be phased out of service, but it’s happening.

It certainly leaves one to think about what other iconic items once thought to be revolutionary will be a thing of the past in the not too distant future…

From a business standpoint, I think it’s important to have enough where-with-all to understand when your product is no longer viable, and when advancements in technology have made your service obsolete.  The phone company has enough diversification to be able to cut ties with the product and still be a viable company, which speaks volumes not only for how far we’ve come in the technology field, but how companies are willing to adopt new standards, and cut bait on old ones.

Verizon Wireless announced yesterday that they will be revising their policy on allowing free-market cell phones to be used on their network. The change will take affect by the mid part of next year.

In effect, it will allow you to buy just about any cell phone, from any vendor, and activate it on the Verizon network.

This is big!

Not just because it gives you more freedom to use whatever cell phone fits your needs, but it also signals that the free market does have an effect, even in the highly competitive wireless industry.

What’s next? Perhaps more flexibility in pricing and plans, and even better, more accessible data streams and free interface to the internet. I for one would like to see a WI-FI card built into every cell phone, as Verizon currently disables that capability, even on phones that come with the feature from the manufacturer.

There are some aspects of this deal that have not yet been worked out, such as whether Verizon will differentiate in plan price based on where you bought your cell phone, and what features it will allow a non-Verizon cell phone to utilize.

As for now, though, this seems to be a step in the right direction, as Google and other tech companies make it easier and less costly to gain access to information and communication technology.

As a side note to the disintermediation in the cell phone sector, AT&T, Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA all responded to the threat of government regulation by announcing (several months ago) that they would follow Verizon’s move last year to prorate fees for contract termination rather than forcing all customers to pay early termination fees that run as high as $200. While I’m not a fan of locking customers in to an unregulated service for such long periods, this move is definitely a step in the right direction!

A vote today inside the FCC could lead to tighter regulation of the cable industry. The five commissioners from the FCC are set to vote on a proposal to include several issues.

First, they are to consider whether or not it should cut rates charged by cable operators to lease channel access to programmers by as much as 75% in order to encourage more diverse programming. Cable operators are required to offer leased space, but it isn’t used widely — mostly carrying infomercials and programming from religious groups.

Secondly, they are to decide whether cable operators should have to settle disputes with programmers through a new FCC-governed arbitration process. Some cable programmers, notably the NFL Network, have complained that cable operators, including Comcast (CMCSA: chart, web, Y!) and Time Warner (TWC: chart, web, Y!), are placing their channels on specialized or sports-related tiers instead of expanded basic tiers, which have more subscribers.

Third, and most controversial, is the decision on whether to accept “state of video” data.

I’ll explain.

For the past couple years, the FCC has used multiple sources to collect data on what percentage of people with the option to subscribe to cable actually do. This year, however, they’re only relying on once source for that data which states that 71.4% of the homes with the option to subscribe to cable actually take the bait.

The reason this is important?

There is a 23 year old rule within the FCC that allows the regulatory authority to impose new regulations to the cable industry if more than 70% of the households exposed to cable service actually subscribe.

Naturally, the cable companies are vastly opposed to this, as they fear that the government could tell them how to run their show. One of the FCC commissioners pet projects is to convince the cable companies to offer channels individually, a-la carte fashion, rather then package them up in bundles like most of them do now.

The FCCs argument is that the consumer would win, and pay for only what they want. The cable operators argue that this would in fact increase costs, as much of the cost to distribute the bundled channels is picked up by the channels that you don’t want, or watch for that matter.

I’m against regulation… or am I?

Surprisingly, I’m torn on this issue. I’ve written in the past on my aggravation with Comcast, and how the cost of basic cable services are getting absurd ($100 per month for basic cable and basic internet). I also am strongly opposed to paying for something I don’t use, which includes 80% of the cable channels available to me through the basic package.

However, I’m also in favor of free enterprise, but only in the setting of fair competition. This gives the most power to the consumer to choose what he wants to buy. If he doesn’t like Comcast’s service, quit using it.

My problem for a long time was that there was no cable competition in my area, until AT&T’s U-verse came to town, at which point I promptly dumped Comcast.

In this regard, I can see the FCC’s point, in that there may not be enough competition in all areas of the sector to provide the consumer adequate choices when it comes to services.

I suspect though, that two things are going to drive regulation in the cable sector without the influence of a government agency:

1. A looming recession, in which the consumer will no longer be able to afford to pay exhorbitant prices for non-essential monthly services.
2. The internet.

What is your take?

Should the FCC further regulate the cable industry, or should the government let the economy, competition, and the power of the internet regulate it on its own?

A while back, I started thinking about how our information would be delivered to us in the future. Provoked by a discussion with futurist David Houle, I thought about how we are starting to favor the internet as a means of media delivery as opposed to traditional television or newspaper.

One reason I believe people favor the internet is that they can tailor their experience based on what they feel is important to them. If you’re a Wall Street fanatic, you may get your news from the online Wall Street Journal, or MarketWatch.com, or TheStreet.com.

If you’re primarily interested in what’s happening in your neighborhood, you might subscribe to your local newspaper’s online edition. For a world-view, there’s always the USAToday.

With this in mind, I started thinking about what will replace the traditional newspaper.

Many people prefer holding something tangible in your hand. For some, picking up the paper in the morning is what starts the day. Thumbing through the paper gives them insight to the events important to them.

But newspapers are expensive, both to print and to deliver. So what about an electronic newspaper?

My vision of the “newspaper of the future” is tangible, convenient, robust, and… reusable.

Stay with me here.

The newspaper of the future will look a lot like a magazine. You can fold it up and stash it in a briefcase, throw it in a duffel bag, and it will fit neatly on a bookshelf or in a desk drawer.

You will be able to turn the pages, just like a magazine, write on it just like a paper (for those who like to fill out the crossword puzzles) and it will be in full color.

Here’s the fun part: It will be completely electronic.

You will be able to customize your electronic paper such that only the articles you have an interest in will be delivered to you in your daily paper. You can divide your paper into sections: Front page, world news, financial, local, and let’s not forget the comic section!

You will download your news to your electronic paper at any time via a wireless connection. You’ll be able to turn tangible pages, with each page a proverbial computer screen with live content, including movies, discussion forums, chat rooms, etc.

You’ll be able to fill out the crossword puzzle with a stylus, much like one that accompanies a PDA.

The best part is that the tangible newspaper itself will be cheap, on the order of fifty cents apiece. Dropping your new-fangled electronic newspaper in a water puddle, rendering it useless will not cause much of a headache at all. Just run to the grocery store and pick up a new one with your milk and loaf of bread. A touch of a digital button will download your news to the new paper and you’ll be back into action in no time.

In the future, you will pay for content. Newspapers product line will be purely digital. Or perhaps the newspaper company will evaporate all together. Journalists will write articles and submit them to an online digital archive for the world to download. You will have the ability to select content based on topic, author, zip code, etc.

The electronic Kansas City Star of the future will be on the same playing field as the London Times.

Sound crazy? Think again! The technology is already here to make this future media fantasy happen!