Santa’s Sleigh is not quite fast enough

This is an example how the holiday season disappointed customers

Last year was a terrible Christmas for many families in the United States. The majority of those families were those that put off their online holiday shopping until the last minute. UPS and FedEx were the two companies that were in the spotlight last year with an estimated 2 million late packages that did not get delivered on time for Christmas. This was due to both bad weather and the lack of planning and preparation these companies had to perform.

The holiday shopping season in 2013 was a record breaking one with more customers than ever shopping online with Amazon, Target, and Wal-Mart to name a few. However, the shipping companies were not the only ones to blame for the disastrous holiday shipping dilemma. Many of the large online retailers were offering customers expedited shipping and/or guaranteed delivery without actually paying the additional fees to the shipping company for that service. For example, if you ordered a product online and the company promised to deliver in two days that doesn’t necessarily mean that the company paid UPS or FedEx to get the package there by those specific days. Retailers were not expecting to pack and ship the amount of orders they did nor were they expecting bad weather around the country or UPS and FedEx to not have the ability to support the large number of packages going through the system. All of these were issues that lead into packages not being delivered on time.

For the upcoming holiday shopping season in 2015 retailers and logistics companies are altering their plans for the massive amount of expected purchases. Shipped goods are expected to rise as much as 11 percent when compared to last year. So you may ask, what are they doing different from last year to support this growing industry of online shopping? More and more of the big box retailers with online and brick-and-mortar stores and also some of the smaller ones are offering more and more options to place your order online and then pick it up in store a short time later. They are also preparing to ship some orders from store locations instead of from a central warehouse, which could significantly decrease transit time.

UPS and FedEx are hiring about 10 percent more seasonal workers than last year to help process, sort and deliver packages. They are also investing enormous amount of money to more efficiently run their operations such as automated sorting.

With these adjustments in place the online stores and shipping companies are supposed to be a lot more effective at delivering packages on time than they were last year.

If you had a position of authority in one of the big box online retailers such as Amazon, Target or Wal-Mart, how would you improve operations?

 

Sources:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2014/10/26/fedex-ups-plan-holidays/17975401/

http://kctv.images.worldnow.com/images/24306338_BG1.jpg

http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2013/11/27/holiday-shipping-art-ga1pqp1u-1holiday-shipping-jpg.jpg

Companies are wanting to automate sorting such as this

 

Phishing for Sardines

Recent trends indicate that cyberattackers are increasingly targeting small, startup businesses as larger companies have ramped up IT defenses in recent years. According to a report by cybersecurity firm, Symantec, “cyberattacks on small businesses with fewer than 250 employees represented 31% of all attacks in 2012, up from 18% in the prior year” (Link 1). As soon as a business sets up its website and email domain, cyberattacks are triggered almost immediately. In fact, by the time a business is five months old, it has already been targeted by hundreds of spam phishing messages and Malware attacks and, within ten months, most companies will have been infected with Malware. (Link 2). Hackers will also use attacks known as Ransomware, where an attackers locks up company computers and networks demanding a ransom to stop the attacks. Computers are not the only targets of these attacks, however. With the proliferation of smart phones and mobile devices in the business world, many attackers are now using malicious software to infiltrate these mobile devices in order to steal valuable information. Verizon’s RISK team has indicated that this trend of increasing attacks on small startup companies has been relatively consistent over the past six years (Link 1).

Larger corporations have the time and resources to devote to IT security that small businesses and startups just don’t have. Startup businesses in particular have enough concerns related to gaining market share and generally keeping their doors open and generally can’t devote enough resources to IT security. Further, despite the statistics, many small business owners falsely believe they are boring targets for cyberattackers due to their size. However, small businesses can be extremely lucrative and easy targets for these types of attacks. Most often, cyberattackers are after customer credit card numbers, contact information, intellectual property, or money from company bank accounts that are specific to the individual target company (Link 2). However, many hackers target small firms with a much bigger prize in mind. Increasingly frustrated with the beefed up security at larger firms, cyberattackers are using smaller firms as an entry point as they are often customers or suppliers of larger firms. Once a smaller firm is infected, it can spread viruses and other malicious software to a larger firm by way of emails and other exchanges throughout the course of normal business operations. Another way attackers are attempting to use smaller companies as bait is through the strategy of infecting startup companies in growth industries like tech and healthcare. The attackers then lie and wait hoping these infected companies will be gobbled up through mergers and acquisitions, which have been increasing as of late with the improving economy and availability of cheap debt. The attackers are essentially using the acquired company as a sort of trojan horse strategy to then infect the acquiring company and steal its valuable information.

Whatever specific tactic is used, startup companies have been increasingly targeted by cyberattacks as of late. In terms of time and resources, these new companies are stretched thin enough as it is. In-house IT departments are very expensive as is externally sourced internet security software sufficient enough to fortify these companies against sophisticated attacks. In light of this, what is a small business owner to do? Can they take steps to not be infected without professional help? Or is IT security spending now just an operational cost of doing business that can’t be avoided?

Link 1: http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/22/smallbusiness/small-business-cybercrime/index.html?iid=EL

Link 2: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/23/technology/startup-cyberattack/index.html?iid=SF_SB_River

High Speed Internet is Probably None of Google’s Business

There has been a lot of buzz surrounding Google’s new super speedy 1000+Mbps fiber optic internet service that has recently been introduced in Kansas City.  With Google actually delivering what they’ve promised to their customers, people are feeling optimistic about the future of American broadband speeds.  Internet service providers such as Comcast and AT&T are known for charging ridiculously high prices for bandwidth packages.  Consumers are tired of paying $60 per month for 20Mbps download speeds, and only getting 8.  So the question we are all asking is, “Why”?  Why are we paying so much, yet receiving so little?  The main issue is our second-rate infrastructure for truly high speed internet.  Countries such as Japan and South Korea offer services running at 150Mbps for $60 per month while ISPs in the United States are charging $90 to $150 per month for 50Mbps.  The lack of widespread broadband infrastructure in the United States leaves just 59% of Americans connected to broadband, while Iceland’s adoption rate is 83%.  The infrastructure that is most commonly used to deliver broadband (DSL) uses copper phone lines to deliver its data. The issue with using DSL via copper wire is that the internet speed decreases as the length of the connection increases.

The United States is slowly offering more and more fiber optic connections to consumers, but it’s still not nearly enough for the US to be a leader in broadband speeds.  With companies like AT&T and Comcast often giving customers less than what they pay for, Google decided that it was time to step in.  Now, again, we have to ask the question, “Why”?  Why does Google care so much about about Americans getting faster internet speeds, when they are not even in the infrastructure business?  Are they trying to enter this market as a long-term competitor, or are they simply trying to pressure other ISPs into offering their own customers faster internet?  Chances are, the latter.  Here’s why.  The majority of Google’s revenues comes from advertising.  In order for Google to continue increasing their ad revenue, more people need to have access to high speed internet.  The quicker that Google can show you their ads, the more revenue they’re going to earn.  Now, why would Google want to spend billions of dollars on their own fiber optic infrastructure, when they could have AT&T and Comcast spend the money instead?  They probably don’t.  What Google is doing by offering record setting high speed internet to places like Kansas City and eventually Austin, Texas and Provo, Utah, is putting pressure on the other ISPs to give their customers faster broadband speeds at a low price.

Is it possible that Google wants to run Google Fiber as a long-term business?  Sure.  But that doesn’t not mean Google is saying, “It’s our business”.  AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are in the business of bearing the high cost of infrastructure renovation.  It doesn’t make much sense for Google to want to do the same, starting from ground-zero.

Sources:

http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/the-broadband-gap-why-is-theirs-faster/

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/04/google-fiber-not-in-your-town/

High-Speed Internet: Is it Still High-Speed?

This past week Google announced that they are expanding Google Fiber to Austin, Texas. Google Fiber is Google’s version of high-speed Internet, which can download at up to 1000 Mb per second, and digital cable television service. This is 100 times faster than any other Internet provider. Google Fiber also gives you one terabyte of storage, which can be used to record up to eight HD TV shows simultaneously. Google provides you with a brand new Nexus 7, that you use as a remote to control your TV.

Google Fiber is currently only being provided in Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, MO. Future cities that will have Google Fiber are Westwood, KS, Westwood Hills, KS, Mission Woods, KS, Kansas City North, MO, and Kansas City South, MO. Google offers three prices for Google Fiber:

Google Fiber Network Box
  • Gigabit + TV: $120/month ($300 construction fee waived)
  • Gigabit Internet: $70/month ($300 construction fee waived)
  • Free Internet (5 Mb): $0/month (for at least seven years) + $300 construction fee

These higher Internet speeds would eliminate those irritating YouTube buffers and would speed up downloading/uploading files. However, are the benefits of Google’s high-speed Internet worth the cost? It is estimated that it cost Google $11 billion to install Google Fiber nationwide, 20 million homes. That comes out to roughly $550 per home. With Google waiving the $300 construction fee, it would take five monthly payments of the highest-priced service, Gigabit + TV, to pay for the installation of Google Fiber to a home. Google would not start making a profit until five months after installing the service to a home. That is a long time to make a profit. This could prevent expansion to other cities.

In order to receive support from city politicians and residents, Google will install Google Fiber to public institutions for free. Hospitals, schools, community centers, and libraries will get Google Fiber installed for free. The rollout of Google Fiber also creates jobs in the Austin area and creates economic growth.

But is Google Fiber really necessary? The current U.S. average Internet speed is 7.2 Mb per second. While 7.2 Mb is not ultra-fast, it is still quite fast. Should Google not be focusing on expanding Internet access globally? Google should focus their Internet operations strategy on providing access to areas where it does not exist. We can wait for Google Fiber until everyone has access to the Internet first.

Should Google be waiving the $300 construction fee? Is this a smart way to gain customers or is Google only increasing its own expenses? Why is Google only expanding Google Fiber from town to town and not expanding nationally at one time? How are other Internet service providers going to compete with Google Fiber and its amazingly fast speed? What would you do with download speeds of up to 1000 Mb per second? Overall, does Google have good product strategy and project management in regards to the rollout of Google Fiber?

Sources

Analyst: Google Will Spend $84M Building Out KC’s Fiber Network To 149K Homes; $11B If It Went Nationwide: http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/08/google-fiber-cost-estimate/

Austin Next City for Ultra-fast Google Fiber: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-04-09/austin-expected-to-be-next-stop-for-google-fiber

Google Fiber: https://fiber.google.com/about/

Google Fiber Expands TV, Internet to Austin, Texas: http://www.abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/04/google-fiber-expands-tv-internet-to-austin-texas

Residents and Businesses Excited for Possibilities Google Fiber Brings: http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/residents-excited-for-possibilities-google-fiber-brings

US Internet Speed Lags Behind S. Korea, Latvia: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/science_tech/us-internet-speed-lags-behind-s-korea-latvia