O2 Scraps Unlimited Mobile Plans

U.K.-based O2 is ending its unlimited data access plans and is switching to buckets of usage.

Beginning June 24 a variety of plans ranging from 500 MBytes to 1 GByte.

O2 to step back from unlimited mobile data deals • reghardware

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.

No Broadband Equality: Density Still Matters

Observers of both U.S. and U.K. efforts to stimulate innovation and competition in the core communications markets will note the vastly-different regulatory approaches. In the U.K. market, where satellite is a significant factor but cable is not, regulators have chosen an aggressive wholesale unbundled local loop regime.

The U.S. market has seen the same initial thrust, only to be followed by an alternate reliance on inter-modal competition between cable and telephone industries, rather than a primary reliance on wholesale, unbundled local loop.

So far, the U.K. market model has proven more friendly to competitors. But physical constraints still are an issue, irrespective of regulatory framework. In thinly-populated areas with low density, the cost of providing broadband remains hig

If BT’s 21st Century network provides evidence, it is that one does not change all access cost inputs simply because a network converts to IP in place of TDM protocols.

In fact, it appears that wholesale access cost for partners who want to use BT’s transmission network to serve rural or suburban customers will be as much as three times higher than similar features will cost in dense urban areas, says Keith McMahon, a U.K.-based blogger.

There’s nothing terribly surprising about this. Infrastructure always costs more, per household, per business or per person in lightly-populated areas.

There’s simply more construction cost and physical media to support, and less ability to share common costs (ports or software licenses, for example), in less-dense areas. IP doesn’t change that.

The implications for competitive providers who lease access from BT and provide retail services to customers under their own names (analogous to U.S. competitive local exchange carriers) are clear enough. Competitors will choose to place their own facilities where customer density is greatest.

The largest nationwide providers, including Carphone Warehouse, Sky, Tiscali, O2 and Orange will find it worthwhile to interoperate at the Tier 1 MSAN level, which gives them coverage of 1,200 exchanges and about 70 percent or 17.7 million of the 25.3 million U.K. homes.

U.K. cable networks largely overlap the areas served by Tier 1 MSANs, for obvious reasons: that is where most of the customers are. Cable networks pass by around 11.8 million homes or 47 percent of total U.K. homes. As McMahon lays out the competitive scenario, about seven companies will contest for customers in 11.8 million homes, or just half the market.

About six companies likely will compete to serve 5.9 million homes or 23 percent of the market. In all likelihood, just one company, BT, will be in position to serve 7.6 million homes, or about 30 percent of total homes.

Population density and loop length still are key impediments to high-bandwidth services, no matter what the regulatory framework.

O2 Says iPhone is Share Changer

Three out of four buyers of the iPhone in Britain will be new O2 customers won from rival mobile networks, according to the new head of O2, which has an exclusive deal to sell the iPhone in the U.K. market.

"Over time, three out of four customers of the iPhone will be new O2 customers, because you can only get the iPhone by becoming a customer of O2," says Matthew Key, incoming O2 chief executive.

T-Mobile Sells iPhone in German Market

T-Mobile will sell Apple's iPhone in Germany for 399 euros ($558) each. Service plans weren't immediately announced. As in the United States, where Apple picked at&t as its exclusive network services provider, customers in Germany will have to sign up for two years to buy and use the 8-gigabyte version of the phone-iPod-Web appliance.

In the U.K. market, where O2 has a five-year exclusive on service for the iPhone. And a pattern seems to be developing in terms of the business model.

Estimates of how much revenue O2 is going to share with Apple vary between 10 percent to 40 per cent and it is likely both figures are correct. The delta is what Apple gets paid based on the degree of churn the device can induce.

Apple might get 10 percent of revenue when an existing O2 customer gets an iPhone, but Apple might get the heftier percentage when a customer switches service providers and becomes an O2 customer.

at&t pays Apple $3 a month when one of its existing customers buys an iPhone plan, but $11 a month when a customer switches carries and becomes an at&t customer.

O2's ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) is around £23, so 10 per cent of that would be £2.30 while 40 per cent comes to £9.20.

iPhone for O2: Zero Margin for Carrier

Mobile operator O2 (Telefonica) reportedly has won the right to sell the Apple iPhone in the U.K. market. It may ultimately regret the victory, as the Guardian reports O2 is giving Apple 40 percent of service revenues.

The other U.K. mobile operators reportedly backed away from the deal as the O2 business arrangement essentially is a guaranteed money loser. O2 of course is gambling it can leverage the deal to take share from its U.K. competitors.

As part of the deal, Carphone Warehouse will act as an authorized retailer for O2 as well. Apple apparently retains control of device pricing.

The deal is part of a number of potential destabilizing developments in the mobile business. It isn't simply who is in the networks business. It also is where value and hence profit are to be made in the mobile ecosystem. Apple thinks it is the phone. Google might think it is the ability to create targeted advertising. Other players, such as satellite TV providers, might see value in the ability to create a triple play including broadband access and voice.

In the U.S. market there is the possibility of bids for 700 MHz spectrum, enough to construct a national broadband network. Google has said it likely will bid, and Apple itself is said to be considering its own bid. Other contestants in need of a terrestrial broadband capability, such as DirecTV and EchoStar, have to be weighing their own options as well.

Buying a transmission network is a costly way to create an application delivery network. But there are precedents. Broadcast TV, radio, cable TV, cellular, paging, satellite TV and telephone networks all were built to provide a single "killer" application. Apple could be looking at 700 MHz as a way of jumpstarting mobile video. Google is more interested in mobile advertising. The satellite providers would gain a terrestrial broadband and voice capability to create a triple play under their own control.

One might question whether any new firm focused on new applications would want the headaches of running a network. One might question whether the advantage of owning a network is really worth what it would cost to acquire spectrum and construct a network. But it is a measure of destabilization that such developments are being pondered.

Separately, T-Mobile is expected to win exclusive iPhone rights in Germany, while Orange wins that right in France. At this point, Apple is betting the device trumps the network. The U.K. iPhone will use the slower 2.5G EDGE network, not the faster 3G network.