V_LAN Technologies

Hello,

A few days ago we sent you an email letting you know that we were working on recovering an inconsistent data snapshot of one or more of your Amazon EBS volumes. We are very sorry, but ultimately our efforts to manually recover your volume were unsuccessful. The hardware failed in such a way that we could not forensically restore the data.

What we were able to recover has been made available via a snapshot, although the data is in such a state that it may have little to no utility…

If you have no need for this snapshot, please delete it to avoid incurring storage charges.

We apologize for this volume loss and any impact to your business.

Sincerely,
Amazon Web Services, EBS Support

This message was produced and distributed by Amazon Web Services LLC, 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109-5210

Social media — digital consumption is here to stay!! IT senior management must define how the enterprise will do business in a digital economy. IT initiatives can no longer have a functional/vertical implementation; but must cross all business lines. The demand to access data globally means the organization cannot “afford” to ignore Business Process Management and standardization.

Regrettably, too many CEOs are not in step with their CIOs and other senior IT executives when the long-range strategic planning begins and the question: “How to do we manage IT” is addressed. They are not just on the wrong page but often not in the same book!!! How do you get all of the executive stakeholders reading from the same script? Propose the following four critical path questions and begin to implement a strategy that will provide your organization with a high-quality Information Management plan, cost-effective service delivery that includes … data mining, mobile, social media, virtualization, blogging, posting and most importantly, “like”. Like will define your focus group for free!!!!

Digital, “like” and “RT” is representing the foundation for the business economy. Organizations will come to realize that the global reach and recurring mentions translates to increased market share—WIN.

Senior executives must begin to realize the “control” of your data and who owns it requires a different approach in a digital economy. Engagement will now take place where the customer is – not where you are. With that in mind, take a hard look at these critical leadership questions to begin the switch from functional to a matrix support organization that includes growth and expands data access.

1. Are we using technology to transform our business, or are we just adding bells and whistles to existing processes?
2. Are we ignoring important business differences as we standardize processes across the company?
3. At what level is the company’s digital strategy is being implemented and who are the champions?
4. Is electronic data empowering our employees or controlling them?

The inefficiencies inherent in the traditional command-and-control spectrum regulatory system are increasingly costly as demand for spectrum-dependent services explodes. This paper describes a conceptual framework to articulate clear rights of access to spectrum in a way that fosters a market-based allocation of the resource. We also offer simple rules that reasonably account for imperfect receivers and challenging physical properties of radiowaves. The key features of the system we propose are:

Regulators construct an initial partition of spectrum rights across the dimensions of space, time, frequency, and direction of propagation. Each partition is called a licensed electrospace right (LER). Regulators devolve these rights to LER owners.
Licensees may buy, sell, aggregate, and subdivide their LERs at will.
Licensees must keep all signals within their respective LER, including its frequency band, geographical area, angle of propagation range, and authorized time of operation. In particular, all signals must have a power level of less than a regulated limit (E0) outside the LER, with exceptions allowed with a probability no greater than an amount specified by regulators (such as one percent).
Licensees must limit transmitter power or field strength within their LER to below a regulator-set level for the band in which they operate (Emax).
Regulators or other parties must establish and maintain a detailed database and propagation model that facilitates transactions and enforcement.
In this system, regulators set up the rights database and establish a few core parameters for each band. Thereafter their role is limited to enforcing compliance with the simple set of rules on signal strength. Importantly, this system includes no protection of, or constraints on, receivers, so it does not directly control interference. Rather, through transactions and negotiations between LER owners, the system we outline here would induce an efficient level of interference in which the costs of controlling interference are balanced by the benefits.
INTRODUCTION
In the United States, the federal government has traditionally regulated access to radio spectrum with “command-and-control” licensing. Regulators divide the radio spectrum into frequency ranges, or bands, and typically allocate each band for a single type of radio service with very specific rules about its operation. These rules define the system of rights for licensees to provide the specified services for each band.

This traditional command-and-control spectrum regulation has sought to optimize the technical rules for different radio services, generally with good success. However, rapidly evolving technology and increasing demands for wireless services mean this rigid regulatory structure is increasingly poorly suited to optimizing the economic efficiency of the allocation of frequencies across different kinds of radio services. That is because the spectrum rights conveyed by a traditional license are usually exactly sufficient to provide only the services the regulator intends. The licensee can transmit with a specified power, at a specific location, using a specific antenna and tower, employing a specific modulation and bandwidth as needed to provide the specified service. This has generally provided a good “recipe” for operating the intended service with an acceptable quality, but it relies heavily on the regulator, rather than the market, to determine which spectrum resources are used for which applications. This fails to accommodate new services and applications, particularly for cell phones and other wideband wireless services, and it fails to provide efficient incentives to develop and deploy new technology. In most cases, to accommodate new uses regulators have moved the existing users of allocated bands to other suitable bands. Because of the time and expense of such reallocations, regulators need other ways to accommodate a wide range of services without requiring reallocation to each specific new use.

This paper offers a conceptual way forward. It explores the technical fundamentals of establishing rights to access spectrum, including the institutional, scientific, and engineering considerations important to policymakers. It describes how regulators could articulate rights to spectrum access such that rights holders could transfer, subdivide, aggregate, and protect their rights in an economically efficient market that accommodates evolving demands for the resource. We examine current approaches to expressing rights to access spectrum, their advantages and disadvantages, and how they may lead to economically inefficient underutilization of spectrum resources.

The technical basis for spectrum rights, meaning the way the regulatory system articulates rights to access spectrum, is key to achieving an efficient allocation of the resource through markets. If spectrum resource owners can subdivide or transfer their rights in a competitive market, then they perceive the full opportunity cost of holding the resource as revealed by market prices for spectrum rights. In an efficient spectrum market, incumbents would have an incentive to adopt technologies that optimize their use of the resource and to devolve underutilized spectrum to others with higher and better uses. Thus, in a flexible rights regime, market forces and available technologies would determine the efficient degree of partition of rights in any particular band or application, and at the same time market forces would induce investors to develop new technologies that use highly valued spectrum more efficiently and exploit low cost spectrum for new applications.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines the basics of band allocations, frequency assignments, and spectrum licenses. This provides the foundation to examine the details of exclusive spectrum rights and assess the advantages and disadvantages of the current system with an eye toward identifying approaches that could work better. Section 3 describes the physics of radio signal propagation that underlie any spectrum applications and introduces the seven-dimension “electrospace” approach to describing radio signals and the rights to emit them. We argue that increased exploitation of these dimensions will be central in improving spectrum capacity.

Section 4 describes the traditional command-and-control approach to regulating airwaves that is the basis for most management of radio use in the United States and the rest of the world, and Section 5 briefly discusses several frequency management alternatives to command-and-control, including low-power commons and some opportunistic dynamic spectrum sharing techniques. Section 6 describes how the electrospace approach can be the technical basis of flexible-use spectrum rights. We present a way to express the rights to use spectrum that is not tied to any specific service or technology, allowing market forces to allocate spectrum such that new radio technologies and applications can be rapidly accommodated with minimal regulatory oversight. Section 7 describes some challenges with selecting and enforcing exact rules to regulate flexible-use bands. We describe relatively simple rules that can simultaneously prevent interference and allow substantial flexibility in use, and we discuss what we see as the most promising applications flexible-use frequency bands. Section 8 concludes.

Originally posted by:

Robert Matheson, retired U.S. Department of Commerce/NTIA
Adele Morris, Fellow, Economic Studies
Brookings

Q. You are considering whether to start a social networking effort on behalf of your company. Can that kind of exposure be beneficial?
A. In many cases, it can be. As an employee, you are an extension of your company and can enhance its brand by connecting with current and potential customers on sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as through blogs.
Social media can be a powerful tool for listening to customers and building a reputation for responsive service, says David Nour, chief executive of the Nour Group, a business development consultancy in Atlanta, and author of “Relationship Economics.” “You get real-time feedback and can engage with customers quickly to answer questions or help them solve problems.”
If your company is about to release a new product or service, for example, social media can spread the word and increase your reach exponentially, he says.
Q. Does that mean it’s O.K. to start tweeting and blogging immediately?
A. No. If you are going to speak publicly on behalf of your company, you first need to discuss it with your boss. Many companies don’t have formal social media policies yet, so talk to human resources or the legal department about what you plan to do, says Douglas Karr, founder of the digital marketing firm DK New Media in Indianapolis and author of “Corporate Blogging for Dummies.”
You may not receive management’s support — and perhaps rightly so, because not every company should use social media, Mr. Karr says. “Some companies don’t have a culture that fits with it, like financial or law firms. There might be too many legal ramifications.”
If you start using social media for customer service, you run the risk that your company will not be able to respond quickly to complaints or problems.
Try making a business case for your plan by outlining your goals and how they align with the company’s, says Josh Bernoff, a senior vice president at Forrester Research and co-author of “Empowered: Unleash Your Employees, Energize Your Customers, Transform Your Business.”
Q. What are some ways to use social media effectively?
A. Be specific about your objective — for example, to have customers make one more purchase each year — says Adam Metz, who works from San Francisco as director of social business for the Pedowitz Group, a marketing firm, and wrote “The Social Customer,” to be published in July.
Work with the marketing department on a strategy to achieve your goal and a way to track the results of your campaign, Mr. Karr says. “Let’s say your company releases a new product and you want to tell people about it,” he says. “The marketing department can give you a link people can use to find out more about the product, and it enables them to track who is responding.”
Although it’s common for companies to use Twitter and Facebook, posting comments to industry blogs is another way to enhance your business’s reputation. “Follow the leaders in your industry and comment on their blogs” in the appropriate area, Mr. Karr says. “This is a place to add insight and alternative views, not write about your company.”
In fact, Mr. Metz suggests a four-to-one engagement. “Every time you write a post about your company, you should also write a comment on four other people’s blogs in your industry,” he says. “Don’t just pump out content about your company.”
Q. Although your intentions are good, you don’t want the company to get into trouble because of your tweeting and blogging. Are there rules you can follow to avoid that?
A. Never disclose proprietary or confidential information belonging to the company or its clients, says Sara A. Begley, a partner in the employment practice at the law firm Reed Smith in Philadelphia who advises clients about social media use in the workplace. Disparaging your competition publicly by making untrue statements could be seen as an unfair trade practice or defamation, she says. “You could also write something that is viewed as discriminatory, harassing or threatening and be fired for that.”
If you have a question about something you want to post, ask the human resources department. Have it send an e-mail approving your post so you have a written record, she says.
Don’t comment on blogs anonymously. If you are discovered and your identity revealed, you risk an embarrassing response from those who believe that your company is having employees post positive comments on blogs, says Mr. Bernoff of Forrester. Identifying yourself as an employee allows those comments to be evaluated properly.
One common-sense guideline for using social media is to obey the same rules you would with any other communications channel. “In the same way you can’t stand up at a conference and tell everyone what your company’s financial results will be for next quarter,” Mr. Bernoff says, “you also can’t tweet about it.”

Original post – career coach @nytimes.com

As we move quickly to a mobile, agile mode of IT Service Delivery.   New architectures that enable dynamic workload portability will change the strategy of the CIO from operationally focused to sourcing and portfolio focused.

Veteran CIOs will inevitably cycle out in the face of change. And a new cast of IT leaders with less focus on “gate-keeping” will emerge and enlist an inspired vision of public cloud services and more open, transparent data sharing.

The successful among them will find ways to define the “to-be” IT delivery model, while also looking after “as-is” realities. New expectations for IT will require new expectations for IT leadership to guide us through what is going to be a mandatory transformation.

For me, it’s a work in process!!!!  One day at a time … “privacy”.

Maybe you’ve seen the recent back and forth discussions about Google’s search quality from the A-list. It has created enough buzz Google even responded. Perhaps you are wondering why everyone seems so upset? Or maybe you have no clue what I’m talking about and have been enjoying a high quality search experience, ignoring the early adopter pontification.

Either way, the truth is most people think search engines do a good job.

A survey reported by Search Engine Land shows this nicely – 89% of users are satisfied with their search results (and a big 0% say poor):

So early adopters aside, the general population thinks search engines do pretty well. I would tend to agree even if there are some edge cases of spam leaking through. I find the results of Google to be very high quality – and in cases I can’t find what I want with a regular search, I’ve got the important operatorsmemorized anyway. That’s why it’s funny to me when tech savvy people complain about lack of quality in Google. If you know how to search you can definitely find what you need.

With that in mind, I wanted to weigh in my opinion about some of the conversations about search going on around the web lately:

Search is not a simple problem to solve

An ever-expanding mix of content, sites and services sprout up daily. All trying to compete with the existing ones. Concurrently, all of them are working to develop content and create signal to their sites that will help show quality ahead of others. All of this while existing sites continue to market themselves to improve both search and social performance. Search engines have been working hard to keep up and maintain relevancy and quality despite the changing landscape of the web. It’s not an easy problem to solve and if you consider how good most of the results are even without using advanced queries I’d say the major engines all do well.

If you go looking for imperfection of course you’re going to find it

Web search is not a problem that is 100% perfectly solved. It may never be. That’s because the one constant of the web is change. In content, in relevant quality signals and how we use it. And that’s OK – dealing with indexing near-infinite amounts of content you will always be able to find a search which isn’t perfect if you look hard enough. Thus is the nature of searching for information. I think a lot of the complaining lately is from users who expect everything to be perfect. We’re trending to a web that’s getting even better at predicating what we want however that’s just not a reality yet. But it’s so good considering how nascent the technology is in the bigger picture that we should all be amazed. Literally frozen in amazement. I think aside from those complaining because they feel slighted by Google, it is a case ofeverything is amazing and nobody’s happy.

Complaints about monopoly are absurd

Our government does some pretty obnoxious things such as allowing businesses to influence them with monetary contributions, rallying against the wrong things to “protect the children” simply to generate public approval (but not actually accomplish anything) and other items which are pretty frustrating, but sadly not out of the norm. So the fact that Google now has to go to Washington to lobby against search engine regulation isn’t a surprise, but is equally as ridiculous. Google is not a monopoly. It’s popular because it’s good. Don’t like it? Use Bing. Or Blekko. Or Duck Duck Go. Or Yahoo. The point is Google is most certainly not the only web search option and it is consumer preference to use them.

Search is still a disruptive business

Web search is hardly new, but it is still a very disruptive business. And so naturally a lot of people don’t like Google. Some media entities see search as a double edge sword – it sends them traffic, but they think Google “takes” advertising revenue from them. I use “take” in quotes because while some media see it as taking, I take a different perspective: that media does not need to be saved from search. They need to evolve how they monetize and build community. The opportunity is there and pivoting their approach could actually make Google their largest ally instead of something to be feared. And yet it’s easier to cling to the past and fight progress. Hard to feel sympathy for anyone who is being disrupted by technology though because that’s sort of how innovation works. Evolve or don’t, but to rally against it makes you look like you can’t compete.

Social does not kill search – they work together

While some people like to think social is “killing SEO” they are being shortsighted: search is a core function of the web and is not going away. My main focus at LEWIS PR is social, not search. But I view the web holistically and for clients we ensure that anything happening in social is helping their search visibility. Social media pros who don’t also understand search need to learn SEO as they are falling short of their craft. Besides, putting social before search is like putting the cart before the horse. The order here matters. Think about it – even if you succeed wildly in social if your main site isn’t optimized you just built a whole lot of signal that didn’t even help you rank or gain traffic. Your competitors will still be found ahead of you by those with an immediate need for their product or service. Social builds community and branding, but organic search produces the cleanest, most relevant traffic.

I think at the end of the day all the ranting about Google falls under one of the following buckets:

• Someone has a product that competes, and thus wants to try to position Google as evil or less relevant.
• An SEO is upset that Google is going a direction they don’t like or want.
• A blogger or reporter writes something negative or anti-Google because it’s good for pageviews and links (and ultimately more traffic from Google – talk about biting the hand that feeds them!).
• Media are upset Google is making ad revenue by indexing their content (yet sending them free traffic – instead of complaining they should take advantage of this to build community and ultimately more revenue).
• A tech geek found a SERP they didn’t like and wants to use it as an example the sky is falling (while a majority of people are finding their searches valuable).
• Meanwhile, I remain a fan and supporter of Google – their products are strong, and much of the complaining is either undue or has ulterior motives behind it.

This post originally appeared at The Future Buzz

When Goldman Sachs announced a $450 million investment deal with Facebook during the first week of 2011, I knew this would be the BIGGE$T social networking story of the year.   Being an IT geek trained in economics, this announcement is music to my ears.  Trying to explain to CIOs around the country the “value” of social networking and how it can enhance existing corporate models in multiple vertical lines of business just got a whole lot easier.   Here’s why:

• potential IPO gets Corp attention
• portal to the world
• has replaced Google & Microsoft tools
• low cost broader focus groups – branding/communication

Will Facebook really do an IPO offer is not the question. When a company offers an IPO, it changes… can an organization full of 20 and 30 somethings be corporate?  Yes, A hybrid!! They can disclose their financials, benefit from investors (499+) and not become public.  This will allow Zuckerberg and company to maintain an “engineer” world for development.  Play with the “grownups” on Wall Street while not having to deliver services based upon some business analyst financial objectives.  The investment affords the investor monetary leverage – organizations love that… win/win!!!

When I posed this question to my social network, two poignant responses came to light… 1) it’s my portal to the world and 2) “I don’t know how to put it in terms of monetary value, but Facebook has emerged as one of the control points for the web”.   These two individuals, a teenager and an experienced professional, require very different objectives from the same tool, but viewing it as providing the same thing.    If that does solidify Zuckerberg’s desire to “change the world” as the fastest growing company in history what does?

It’s pretty common knowledge desktops are disappearing.  Everyone needs a developer and wants an application for a mobile device.  Once there was Microsoft, then Google now Facebook.  More importantly, social “mobility” is the tech objective.  David Kirkpatrick, writer, “The Daily Beast” commented Facebook is “like the telephone system”.  It’s true, we ARE bringing our friends with us everywhere we go.  Recently, a friend posted on Facebook, “need to upgrade…phone… what’s best”?  In less than two hours, there were 40 responses.  These are people he trust, current users for the devices, and no need to deal with sales pressures.  IPhone or Android cannot pay for that kind of free product endorsement.

Finally, our lawmakers are realizing they can reach hundreds of constituents using these tools for FREE (music to politicians’ ears).  They are learning to listen, engage and “personally” participate.  Facebook can build that one-2-one relationship quickly.

We will no doubt have to wait until April, 2012 to know if Facebook is worth $50 billion; however, the common thread being woven throughout the business world using social media tools is apparent right now.

Everyone is talking about the top tweets of 2010, most powerful, most retweeted, most funny.  I thought about this and decided my last blog post of 2010 would ask the question, “How did “Tweeting” Affect Critical Events of 2010?”

I have come to believe that there is no other social media tool that has the ability to instantly take a Corporation from “just another day at the office” to the brink of collapse and international obsession… how many hours did you spend watching the oil gush during the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. On September 19, 2010, BP effectively killed the Macondo Well five months after the April 20th explosion.  What hurt BP corporate execs the most, they denied there had been a spill, but people kept tweeting and the world listened.  Remember the fat lady still hasn’t sung… the populace of the effect lands and the business owners are continuing their fight for satisfaction … don’t let the tweeting stop… keep BP accountable!!!!

On Tuesday, January 12th, Haiti was hit with an earthquake of a catastrophic magnitude –7.0m_. While Haitians walked aimlessly through the ruble… social networking tools…Facebook/Twitter provided a reliable source of communication and connected many to their loved ones with both good and bad news.  So powerful was this tool that President Barack Obama sent his first tweet (via 3rdparty) while visiting the American Red Cross headquarters to survey its response to the Haiti earthquake.  Had it not been for these tools the world would have never known the true depth of despair and the overwhelming support that was facilitated by its use to generate billions of relieve aid. Unfortunately, until this country can produce and become economically viable the poverty will continue to grow… let’s not stop tweeting about the cries of an impoverished people.

I am still amazed by how a social community changed the mind of an international corporation in just seven days!  After twenty years someone at the GAP decided to “change” the logo of its “brand” to a white background, black letters and a small blue square in the top right corner –BIG mistake!  The customer base rebelled by using Twitter/Facebook to voice their opinions.  Hopefully, organizations will continue to realize that the customer is paying attention and talking.  The issue is whether corporate will engage in the conversation or not.  However, I ask the question… “If Gap did not return to the old logo, would they have lost customers”?  I guess we will never know.  A significant lesson learned .. know your customer and engage them.   Because the power of the public is growing –no doubt!

As I reflect on 2010, the most significant, life changing events were first reported on Twitter.  This includes that crazy man held up in the Discovery Channel Building… threatening to kill a room full of innocent people.  Fortunately, someone in the building tweeted the situation and the authorities, unfortunately, had to take him out.

The shift from traditional media will continue as we tweet about everything from birth to death and all the living in between.   Social networking tools have become the method to galvanize people in a cause, champion a sporting event, and even discuss internationally your favorite television program in real time.  If you want to know what’s up or how our government is going to regulate this exchange of information… it’s on Twitter!  If you have a message to share… tweet it!!!  No tool has the inherent ability to reach billions in moments and that can save lives!  HNY!!

The seemingly increased popularity of the Bing search engine made me wonder…Why?  Why Microsoft a computer services company, the second most valued company in the marketplace (EXXON – 1^st), go head-to-head with the most popular search engine “Google”?   A company that did not exist fifteen years ago and now has an estimated valuation of $11 billion!!!

So I conducted a 30-day comparison of Bing v. Google.  By searching a specific topic each day several times a day, I was intrigued there was such disparity.  Primarily, the difference was based on a user vs. a corporate (enterprise) search. When people think of a search engine –they simply search; however, very often times not returning the data they were looking for.  Is that a result of the algorithms of the search engine, the person searching OR the way the engine interprets YOU and what it thinks your looking for?  Personally, I think it’s the latter. However, both seem to become more educated about me and that is representative of the ad surrounding my searches.

Google’s footprint is formidable, given the company’s search and video (YouTube) presence. In terms of services and support, Google is lessening its influence within risk-averse enterprise IT shops. For example, Google doesn’t allow companies to control where their data is stored or not stored.  This may very well be a contributing factor –what is returned and in what ranking.  I recently met a gentleman who owns a domain name (obtained when FREE – 20 yrs ago), he was at one time able to survive with the checks received  on the high number of clicks for that name. He has refused hundreds of offers to sell that name.  Beginning in 2010, his ranking has dropped to page 5 or 6.  When was the last time you searched beyond page 2?  Did Google “de-rank” because he has not been willing to sell the name for profit?  What does these stories say about access to information – SEO is BIG business!!!!

When Microsoft introduced Bing on June 1, 2009, it advertised as an alternative to Google – Why?  Bing offers its own take on search-engine such as keyword search and maps, in addition to new features, such as specific tabs like Travel and Shopping.  Facebook now incorporates users social data to Bing … Bing offers:

• stronger emphasis to keywords in URLs;
• seems to give more weight to capitalized terms;
• prefers pages from large sites

Over the last 17 months Microsoft has made an effort to add new bells and whistles to strengthen the core search engine. While Google continues to dominate in terms of overall searches, Bing has enjoyed strong gains in a number of vertical industry categories.  This rang true during my limited research method.  Google believes people are searching for information and introduced Google Squared; whereas Bing feels people are looking to buy. Increasingly, more consumers are buying via eCommerce and this may bode well for Bing.  Have you noticed, Google is providing “categories” now?

However, the information is very different.  A categories list from each on Obama:

Google Squared is banking on personalization and stores more data about you than anyone.  Google Squared is a search tool that helps you build a collection of facts from the Web, for any topic you specify:

• facts about your topic are organized into a table;
• customize these Squares to see the interested items and attributes;
• see the websites that served as sources for the information in your Square;
• save and share Squares with others

Although, Google currently controls 72% of the search market, according to Experian Hitwise.  Take a moment to think about what type of information your looking for before you search and click … where’s Yahoo?  Only heaven knows!!!!