Verizon Grows Annual Revenue 5x More Than Average

Verizon's revenue growth over the last year tops, by a substantial margin, revenue growth for nearly all other service providers among the 30 largest in the world.

Annual revenue growth of about 1.6 percent is the average, says TeleGeography.

Verizon grew revenue by 10 percent. Vodafone, China Mobile and Deutsche Telekom were the other stand-outs.

Android: It's the Business Models

The most important thing about Android, the open mobile operating system and platform sponsored by Google, is arguably not the technology or the implications for handset cost: it's the development of business models.

One might think: "well, this is open source, so we will look for business models that are like the existing models for open source." But that's probably not going to be the case. Today's revenue model for open source is payment for enhancements, support and training.

To some extent, the business model is implicit rather than explicit. If I am a hardware or software applications provider, I simply use Asterisk because it is a lower-cost way of implementing something that an end user actually buys, even it the thing being bought essentially is a "legacy" requirement.

Voice mail, phone system or messaging platform are examples. In those cases, the operating system is an input to a business model, but not the model, which is the same one that existed before the open source tool was available.

Translated into a mobile market, it looks different. Open source will not do much, in and of itself, to lower the cost of a handset. So open source doesn't necessarily mean "cheap or free handset."

One can assume handset makers using Android will stabilize their versions so there is little need for third party end user support. That is a bug, not a feature, in the mobile end user world.

And since the whole idea is "easy to use," there shouldn't be much of a market created for training people how to use, develop, maintain and upgrade their operating systems. End users don't want to do that.

Assuming Android devices are used on existing networks (the 700-MHz C band network remains a bit of a wild card), the pricing models for data access are relatively affordable already, so it isn't clear whether there is immediate impact on data plan pricing either.

So consider Android a better way to help create a mobile Web business. The mobile phone business is built on recurring payment of access fees for voice, text and data access. The mobile Web just assumes access.

So the revenue model must begin where the Web itself begins. And that means advertising, to the extent that features and content have to be monetized directly. Of course, there's also content and applications given away for free in hopes that the attention will lead to support for some other business model, be that public relations, consulting, marketing, software or what have you. In that case a content provider doesn't necessarily require a revenue model.

But that's not what service providers, device manufacturers and application providers are looking at. The issue is revenue. And from where I sit, that means a media model.

The media model includes "for fee" and "for free" services and content, with greater or lesser degrees of advertising support. That means "aggregating eyeballs" and "aggregating highly-detailed information about the owners of those eyeballs" and "tracking the behavior of those people." That makes the advertising model quite valuable.

In the mobile arena, valuable as in "can I entice you to visit Starbucks right now; it is around the corner?" Valuable as in "are you hungry and a lover of good Thai food? You are half a block away."

Some will speculate about whether an entirely ad-supported model is conceivable. Well, it's conceivable, but not likely. Broadband access isn't free. But that isn't the point. If the value is high enough, a reasonable fee is not a barrier to usage.

Android is more likely to have an impact in making the mobile Web, and applications built on the mobile Web, far easier to use and vastly richer in functionality.

That's a hugely important and economically significant activity. But I don't think Android is about "free phone calls" or "free Web access" or "free phones," as many either think or hope for. Rich applications will be reward enough for users, who are quite capable of figuring out a value-for-money proposition. Android is about the promise of a mobile Web so useful we won't mind paying access fees to use it.

The one exception is that some users will appreciate "sometimes" being able to use Wi-Fi hot spots to access applications. This is a subset of users who choose not to pay a recurring fee for fully-mobile access, and want to rely on Wi-Fi for all of their connectivity.

Then there are users who occasionally will be happy to have Wi-Fi access for signal strength reasons, even if they are comfortable with a fully-mobile broadband connection.

Still, it seems likely that the early pull of Android applications is going to be location-based. "Where am I? How do I get there? Where can I find it? I didn't know that was on sale. So that's where you are."

Ad-supported phone calls, devices or access might have some role to play, sometimes. But I doubt that's the big impact.

Flat Rate Data Roaming from Asian Mobile Providers

A group of Asian mobile carriers early next year will provide traveling users data access for a flat daily fee.

The carriers call themselves the Conexus Mobile Alliance, and include Hong Kong's Hutchison, Indonesia's Indosat, Japan's NTT DoCoMo, the Philippines' Smart, Singapore's StarHub, South Korea's KT Freetel, India's Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Manager Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) and Taiwan's Far EasTone. The alliance covers 11 territories and 160 million consumers.

All the carriers use the Wideband Code Division Multiple Access data standard operating faster than 3G.

Some of the carriers already have deployed high-speed downlink packet access (HSDPA), supporting speeds up to 1.8 Mbps. NTT DoCoMo already offers 3.6Mbps, and plans to launch a 7.2M bps service early next year.

The carriers hope the new alliance will boost data usage within Asia.

Google Issues: att and Verizon

Google hopes to do to the mobile market what it has helped do to the traditional Internet: bring people closer to content. At an important level, that means Web apps surfing on a mobile should have a consistent, if not identical experience, as the same operation on a notebook or desktop PC.

In that regard, Google is engaged in a genuine coopetition: it needs legacy carriers as partners even as it competes with them. And every potential partner knows that what is good for Google might not be good for anybody else.

Google already has jumpstarted its effort in a big way, picking up China Telecom, NTT and KDDI, plus Sprint and T-Mobile in the U.S. market, T-Mobile Deutschland, Telefonica in Spain and Telecom Italia right at the gate. That gives Google carrier agreements Apple and Microsoft never got that fast. And Google's operating system and platform now are global from the get-go.

That means the carrier blockade is broken. Verizon and at&t might or might not join up with the Android effort. But they no longer can stop it.

Of course, Google will proceed on multiple fronts. It won't get where it wants by forcing everybody to use Android. So it will work with carriers when it can, or work around them if it has to. From a stategic perspective, Google wants its apps and experiences on every device, if possible, with or without Android.

Which means some accommodation with at&t and Verizon is possible, indeed likely, at some point. If Android gets traction at Sprint and T-Mobile, not to mention elsewhere, neither of the two largest providers will want to be frozen out of the action.

And that will be true even if Google ultimately emerges as part of a bidding group, perhaps even a winning group, in the 700 MHz spectrum. There are lots of stakeholders who gain if a robust mobile Web experience can be created. Not the least of which are firmware, chip and software providers from the legacy PC space (Microsoft being the salient exception, as it already is a major and growing mobile OS and application provider.

We should preclude nothing at this point, in terms of Google becoming an owner, at least in part, of a major broadband network; producing its own branded devices; getting "top of the deck" exposure on other devices and operating systems or other as-yet-to-be-developed ways.

Google is determined to be a force in mobile and it has lots of ways to proceed, simultaneously. If its gets what it wants, it won't need its own network, devices or apps. Others will do those things. If Google doesn't get what it wants from others, then it will have to consider creating those capabilities itself. Either way, Google in the game for good.

The only unfolding issue is how a complex set of relationships unfolds. Those who want Google to disrupt less will find that their own actions can help tip Google one way or the other. The same holds true for those who might want Google to disrupt more. If they are willing to commit their own capital, they can nudge Google in that direction.

And keep in mind: major technological innovations tend to achieve less in the near term than most think, but far more in the long term than observers expect.

More Google Partners

Japanese wireless carriers KDDI and NTT DoCoMo, Qualcomm, Broadcom, HTC, Intel and Texas Instruments also are said to be partners for the upcoming Google phone initiative.

Mobile IS Broadband by 2011

Mobile broadband will be the dominant broadband platform worldwide in 2011, according to Informa Telecoms & Media. There will be more than one billion broadband subscribers worldwide in 2011, with the majority using mobile rather than fixed networks.

Mobile broadband will be a "more than" $400 billion service revenues business in 2012, as a result. Of course, getting there will mean climbing a wall of end user resistance to mobile broadband pricing, research by Parks and Associates suggests. That might be especially true if mobile broadband winds up being a replacement for narrowband mobile access, rather than fixed mobile access.

HSDPA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) will be the leading mobile broadband technology by then in terms of number of subscribers, followed by EV-DO (Evolution Data Optimized and mobile WiMAX.

"Mobile broadband will represent close to half of total mobile service revenues in 2012," says Mike Roberts, Informa analyst.

Carrier Fiber Plans Accelerating?

Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, hasn't come to terms with BT about ways to speed up fiber to customer investments in the U.K. market. Up to this point BT has objected to earlier proposals that would have applied relatively robust wholesale requirements to new optical access plant. Perhaps there is new hope for some compromise that reassures investors, speeds up fiber deployment and yet offers some hope of a return.

Around the world, fiber to customer deployments seem poised to accelerate, but both competitive providers such as Illiad in France and Verizon in the United States have been punished by the financial community for daring to proceed with such deployments, which are costly, no doubt. U.S. cable companies have the same problem. Every time there is a hint that capital spending plans might intensify, equity values get hit. Comcast appears to be under that cloud as well at the moment.

Irrespective of the competitive elements of such decisions--obviously the providers making the investments want to keep the rewards, if they can be had--these networks can only be built by private capital. And private capital keeps making clear concern about the payback, whether those investments are made by cable companies, incumbent telcos or competitive providers.

At this point it is a simple fact that the investment framework has to reassure the capital markets. Yes, competition is desirable. But that has to be balanced against capital markets that actually loathe competition. Let's hope Ofcom and BT can thread this needle.

at&t, Verizon, Time Warner Telecom Top Ethernet Providers

Two of the top three providers of U.S. retail business Ethernet services gained port share for mid-year 2007 as compared to year-end 2006 results, according to Vertical Systems Group. In addition, a formerly cable company affiliated contestant entered into the top tier for the first time. Time Warner Telecom, started as an affiliate of Time Warner Cable, has been spun out on its own.

At&t, Verizon Business and Time Warner Telecom are the top three U.S. retail business Ethernet services providers, as measured by ports in service, says Vertical Systems Group.

At&t, including the former BellSouth market share, holds the leading position with a 19.5 percent share of mid-2007 ports. Still, at&t’s share declined compared to the combined year-end 2006 shares for at&t (13.6 percent port share) and BellSouth (8.5 percent) separately.

Verizon Business is second overall with a 15.8 percent port share, up from 12.2 percent at year-end 2006. In third position is Time Warner Telecom with 13.7 percent of ports, a jump from 10.7 percent in 2006, says Vertical Systems Group.

Cox Business, holding a port share of 8.9 percent, now is in fourth position—and is the first U.S. cable company to climb to the top tier of metro Ethernet providers.

Cogent is fifth with an 8.6 percent share of the market, an increase from 8.2 percent at year-end 2006. Qwest (including OnFiber) is sixth at 8.4 percent, down from a 9.9 percent port share.

Yipes is seventh with a share of 4.6 percent, a decline from 5.4 percent at the end of 2006. Yipes recently announced its acquisition by Reliance Communications and will operate as a business unit within the company's FLAG Telecom operations.

Other Business Ethernet Services providers comprise an aggregate 20.5 percent of the market, including AboveNet, American Fiber Systems, Alpheus Communications, American Telesis, Arialink, Balticore, Bright House Networks, Charter Business, CIFNet, Cincinnati Bell, Comcast Business, CT Communications, Electric Lightwave, Embarq, Expedient, Exponential-e, Fibernet Telecom Group, FiberTower, Global Crossing, Globix, IP Networks, Level 3 (including Broadwing), LS Networks, Masergy, Met-Net, Neopolitan Networks, NTELOS, NTT/Verio, Optimum Lightpath, Orange Business, RCN, Savvis, Spirit Telecom, Sprint, SuddenLink, Surewest, Time Warner Cable, US LEC, US Signal, Veroxity, Virtela, Windstream and XO Communications.

Global VoIP Keeps Chugging...

Worldwide VoIP service revenue jumped 66 percent to $15.8 billion in 2006 after more than doubling in 2005, and is expected to more than triple by 2010, says Infonetics Research. Worldwide revenue from residential hosted VoIP services jumped 68 percent between 2005 and 2006 while managed IP PBX service revenue grew 45 percent.

Hosted VoIP services continue to outpace managed IP PBX services by far, with residential services fueling the market, but the business segment is also growing, and will continue to, Infonetics says.

“Asia Pacific has been leading the VoIP services scene for a couple of years, with Japan’s SoftBank pioneering the service and taking a strong lead, but the EMEA and North America regions have gained some ground at the expense of Asia in the last two years. The Latin American-Caribbean region is also posting impressive growth and gaining share,” said Stéphane Téral, principal analyst at Infonetics Research and lead author of the report.

The number of worldwide residential/SOHO VoIP subscribers nearly doubled between 2005 and 2006, to 46.5 million, 46 percent of which are in the Asia Pacific region.

About 71 percent of worldwide VoIP service revenue came from residential/SOHO customers in 2006, 29 percent from business customers.

SoftBank is the world's largest VoIP service provider with 18 percent subscriber market share, followed in order by NTT, Vonage, France Télécom, and Time Warner Cable, Infonetics says.

DoCoMo 4G: 300 Mbps to your Mobile

NTT DoCoMo is about to embark on an ambitious project that provides cellphone users the ability to achieve speeds of up to 300 Mbps on their handsets by the time 2009 rolls around. That, plus at&t's new positioning as a wireless company with landline assets, plus the fact that global "voice account" installed base and growth are killing landlines, has to be disquieting for lots of us who grew up on the wireline side of the business. Wireless is going to keep changing things more than some might like.