Virgin Media Prepares for 100 Mbps Service Launch

Virgin Media has announced the rollout timetable of its 100 Mbps broadband access service, which will priced between £35 a month (about $56) when bought in a bundle, or just £45 per month (about $72) when bought as a stand-alone product.

The 100 Mbps service will go on sale from December.

The average download speed in the United Kingdom was 5.2Mbps in May 2010, up from 4.1Mbps in April 2009. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of U.K. residential broadband connections had a headline speed of above 10Mbps in May 2010, compared to eight percent in April 2009, according to Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator.

Virgin Media

Why Don't All Users Buy the Broadband Equivalent of a Lexus?

Faster is better, where it comes to broadband. But so is a Lexus, right? But there's a reason we have vehicles in all sizes, optimized for different applications, at different price points.

We do different things with vehicles, and for most of us, money is not unlimited. Were it not so, perhaps most people would drive a Lexus. If one assumes there is very little a single cannot do with 15 Mbps, then a family can well benefit from 50 Mbps, if it believes it will have three or four users online, all at the same time, all watching video at the same time.

Lots of households will find that overkill, at least for the moment. In some cases, users can buy 50 Mbps service from Comcast, for about $100 a month. That's a better deal than $145 a month. But the issue for many users will be how much those users really want to spend for service, when they are paying their own money.

More Than 20% of Consumer Broadband Lines Now Come with VoIP

Voice over IP is becoming increasingly important to service providers as a bundle component, say researchers at Point Topic.

“Over 22 percent of consumer broadband lines worldwide now come with a Voice over IP service, and in some markets, such as France, penetration surpasses 90 percent.

Point Topic says there are more than 100 million consumer VoIP subscriptions in service, while another 12 million subscribers were added in the first half of 2010,” says Point Topic’s Senior Analyst John Bosnell.

In some cases, the apparent "killer app" status is likely an artifact of how services can be bought. In many countries, a broadband connection requires purchase of a voice line as well. It might be going too far to say voice is the killer app for broadband access. For most people, Internet access likely is that driver. But voice has emerged as a key feature for broadband access packages, at the very least.

More Than One in Five Consumer Broadband Lines Now Come with VoIP

How Much Demand for 100 Mbps?

While next-generation fixed-line broadband speeds will at some point increase dramatically to 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps, or higher, in some cases, just seven percent of European online households will pay more for higher speed, says Forrester Research analyst Ian Fogg. Some argue that will resolve itself in time. Up to a point, that probably is true. But between "here" and "there" is a transition period where deployed capital could be terribly wasted.

And it is not as though the communications industry has no experience with the dangers. An overly-enthusiastic approach to mobile 3G services nearly bankrupted many mobile providers across Europe in the first decade of the 21st century. All of that should suggest the wisdom of matching broadband supply to demand, when the transition from 3G to 4G, or 10 Mbps to 50 Mbps, does not necessarily provide an obvious end user value as great as the transition frm dial-up to broadband access.

One can argue that prices for higher-speed services are too onerous, but that simply begs the question. Given a choice, nearly all consumers opt for reasonably-fast or moderately-fast services, instead of the "blindingly-fast" services.

One can argue that the only reason is "price," but that argument is akin to saying that most people would buy a Lexus if it cost as much as a Honda Civic.

But more than 70 percent of U.S. broadband customers are happy with their overall service, ranking it between an 8-10 on a 10-point scale, according to Leichtman Research Group. A mere 3 percent scored their service with a 3 or less on the recently conducted survey, while just 26 percent said they’re “very interested” in receiving faster speeds at home. See http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/062210release.html.

Leichtman Research Group finds that 71 percent of US broadband Internet subscribers are "very satisfied" with their current Internet service at home (rating satisfaction 8 to 10 on a 10-point scale), while just three percent are not satisfied (rating satisfaction 1 to 3).

Overall, 66 percent of broadband subscribers rate the speed of their connection 8 to 10, while six percent rate it a 1 to 3.

None of that necessarily and directly speaks to the issue of how much demand there might be for faster services, though. About 26 percent of broadband subscribers are "very interested" in receiving faster Internet access at home than they currently receive, while 44 percent are not very interested.

What is not clear, though, is how much of that potential interest can be converted to actual buying of higher-speed tiers, and, if so, how fast those tiers would need to be, and how they would have to be priced, to move consumers to act. Many consumers might be happy enough to migrate from tiers operating in the 3 Mbps to 5 Mbps range up to 8 Mbps to 10 Mbps, particularly when there still is no compelling new application that requires such bandwidth.

"Next-gen broadband will not be such an easy sell, as there's little pent-up speed dissatisfaction," at least not yet, says Fogg.

Try and find any U.S. service provider, offering actual speeds of just 50 Mbps, talking about the take rates for such services. If you cannot find any company willing to talk about take rates, that is likely because the take rates are so low.

German cable network operator Kabel BW claims that around 40,000 customers are using broadband with speeds of 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps, at a time when 50-Mbps service costs about $41 a month.

 About three million homes are able to buy service at those rates. So buyers represent about one percent of customers. What is not clear is what percentage of those buyers actually are businesses, rather than consumers, either.

Blair Levin on U.S. Broadband

Blair Levin wrote the Federal Communication Commission's "National Broadband Plan," so you can argue he knows a thing or two about both broadband and the policy and financial issues involved.

U.S. Consumer Broadband Speeds Double Every Four Years, Prices Down 23%

Despite arguments by many observers that U.S. fixed-line broadband access services are not competitive, it is a curiously "uncompetitive" market where speeds double every four years, for more than a decade, growing 20 percent a year over the last 13 or so years.

Prices are a harder thing to measure, given the changes in the basic product over time. In other words, what a consumer pays today for a broadband connection is not an "apples to apples" comparison, given the doubling of speed every four years. The "product" a consumer can buy today, for any nominal price, is a different product than was purchased four, eight or 12 years ago.

Nevertheless, the American Consumer Institute notes that, between 2004 and 20009 alone, Internet access pricing declined 23 percent.

Another academic study suggests cable modem prices grew 0.8 percent, while digital subscriber line prices grew five percent, between 2004 and 2009. At the same time, cable modem speeds increased 85 percent while DSL speeds increased 80 percent, that same study found.

On a cents-per-bit basis, cable modem prices declined 45 percent, while DSL cost dropped 42 percent. Over that same period of time, the consumer price index grew 14 percent.

Fuel prices increased 26 percent, food increased 15 percent, housing increased 13 percent, medical care prices increased 21 percent and education increased 32 percent.

It is a strange "uncompetitive" market indeed that has doubled "quality" (speeds) every four years while prices overall have declined 23 percent.

Some observers have suggested that the Google-Verizon agreement on how to handle network neutrality is a concession by Verizon that fixed-line broadband actually is "uncompetitive," or at least not as competitive as wireless broadband is. Some observers might argue that Verizon has conceded nothing of the kind.

The FCC study, one might argue, suggests that despite the apparent lack of competition in the fixed-line broadband market, the data suggest consumers are indeed reaping the benefits of competition.

Cisco Touts "Connected Conversations"

Services, not raw speed, is where consumers think the value of faster broadband will be.

Where are the Broadband Apps?

Some people probably just can’t understand why more than 70 percent of Americans are happy with their existing broadband service. The usual explanation for this state of affairs (besides blaming people for being "dumb") is that there are no applications driving consumer demand because broadband is too slow to allow for higher bandwidth applications.

Experience from markets where 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps service is available suggest it is applications that lag, even when bandwidth is not a particular problem. After 10 years, what truly important applications have developed in markets such as South Korea, for example? You might point to gaming or video on demand.

But some of us would argue those are relatively trivial innovations. They don't seem to change a nation's productivity, and neither of those apps are "new" things we hadn't thought of before.

With over 40 million broadband homes since 2008 with more than 6 Mbps of connectivity, one would expect that there would be more applications that require and thrive at 6 Mbps, some would argue. There arguably are new things people do that involve piracy (content), and there might be some premium subscription services that have at least some penetration.

Don't get me wrong; it is entertaining to watch YouTube or Hulu. I'm just not sure that was what we generally had in mind when we have argued that huge pipes would lead to all sorts of interesting and socially or economically useful new developments. New ways to watch television are interesting to lots of people and companies, to be sure.

But was that what you had in mind?

Digital Society � Blog Archive � Reality check – Americans like their broadband service

Global Broadband Access Market Up to $414 Billion by 2020

The global broadband access market, including both fixed and mobile modes, will increase from $274 billion in 2010 to $416 billion in 2020, an increase of 52 percent, according to the Telco 2.0 Initiative and Disruptive Analysis.

More than half the revenue growth will come from wholesale and “two-sided” fees for improved access capacity and quality. This could include fees paid by business partners who want access to network service provider features and services.

By 2020, mobile broadband will be worth $138 billion, or 32 percent of the total broadband access industry revenues.

The analysts predict growth of “bulk wholesale” revenues, where capacity might be purchased by a third party as a component of some other service. Services provided to electrical utilities or other parties with telemetry needs are other examples.

“Comes with data” business models such as used by Amazon Kindle to sell content also will play a bigger role. Here, a product vendor or service provider contracts for data capacity with the broadband provider, and bundles it in a combined offer while the user does not have a subscription or direct relationship with the telco.

“Slice and dice” wholesale is more complex, and more controversial. This involves operators selling data capacity in fine-grained “parcels” to parties other than the user, who is typically also paying for some level of access.

This type of “two-sided” business model could involve deals with consumer electronics vendors for extra high-quality streams over existing broadband lines, or to content or application providers where they pick up the bill for data transmission rather than the end-user.

Any way one looks at the matter, it appears that various wholesale or enterprise revenues are going to be a bigger part of the overall mobile revenue stream in the future.

Access for "One Price Across Digital Platforms" Will Come

In a move with likely implications for the evolving Internet access business, The New Yorker will let readers pay once for digital access across the iPad, the Kindle and other platforms, hoping to improve on the current industry practice of charging even subscribers for each edition on each device.

The same sort of thing ultimately will happen in broadband access as well, as users start to experience greater pain paying separately, by the device, by the form of access, by the place for their broadband access services.

Both AT&T and Verizon already have spoken about a future scenario where an authorized user can use wireless and wired broadband access, across multiple devices. Think of it as a sort of family plan for individual users, where the "family" includes all the communications-capable devices a particular user wants to use.

If you think the future will feature communications need for a wide variety of appliances, used across home and mobile enviornments, but with differing usage characteristics, a unified plan makes sense.

New Yorker Plans One Price Across Digital Platforms - Advertising Age - MediaWorks

Gap Between Bandwidth and Revenue is Key Wireless Business Challenge

In a nutshell, the gap between bandwidth consumption and revenue is the key problem faced by mobile service providers. The reason is simple enough. Everybody agrees the future industry revenue model will be driven by data services, not voice.

And though service providers will sell a mix of simple connectivity services and other value-added features and services, access will remain a huge, perhaps the biggest single revenue source, even in the future.

Given user resistance to paying higher prices for bandwidth, service providers will struggle to close the gap between rising supply of bandwidth and slower-growing ability to price the additional capabilities in any linear fashion.

That is one reason why offloading access from the mobile networks to the fixed landline network is so important, and why a developing rationale for landline network services providers is "wireless offload." Especially as high-bandwidth video becomes a bigger part of the end user demand, it will be necessary to offload as much of the load as possible to fixed networks.

Why Wireless Might be the Best Way to Serve the "Unserved"

A new study produced by the Federal Communications Commission might be interpreted as arguing for a wireless approach to bringing broadband to many unserved locations, said by the FCC to number seven million homes, adequate for service at 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.

The most rural 250,000 housing units account for $13.4 billion of the total $23.5 billion investment required. In fact, as cost varies inversely with density and distance from a central office or cable headend, the cost curve is a reverse Pareto distribution (a reverse "long tail").

The FCC says wireless, such as a fourth-generation wireless network, is the lowest-cost technology in 90 percent of cases. The point is that population density generally is inversely related to access cost.

Wireless Now Driving Broadband Business

It sometimes is hard to keep up with all the changes occurring in the communications business.

"In 2004, Wi-Fi was embryonic, the Motorola Razr was the hot phone, the BlackBerry was
a CEO’s email device, and Apple's most recognizable product was an orange-sicle laptop," says Bret Swanson, president of  Entropy Economics LLC.

The point is that Internet innovation hardly has been a problem, and Swanson is not convinced creating new rules about "packet neutrality" actually would have a neutral impact on potential for further innovation on the facilities side of the Internet business.

But one of the sometimes unnoticed changes is the huge role wireless now plays in the broadband access business. In fact, by some measures wireless now accounts for the majority of bandwidth consumed by U.S. consumers, for example. Not surprisingly, that suggests wireless bandwidth is where key growth will occur over the coming decade as well.

"Wireless carriers invested $100 billion in just the past three years, and the United States vaulted past Europe in fast 3G mobile networks," he says. "Americans enjoy mobile voice prices 60 percent cheaper than foreign peers."

"And the once closed mobile ecosystem is more open, modular and dynamic than ever," he adds. "We estimate that between 2000 and 2008, total U.S. consumer bandwidth grew from just 7.9 terabits per second to 717 terabits per second."

"On a per capita basis, consumer bandwidth grew to almost 3 megabits per second in 2009 from just 28 kilobits per second in 2000," says Swanson.

Between 2000 and 2008, total residential bandwidth grew 54 times; total wireless bandwidth grew 542 times; total consumer bandwidth grew 91 times; residential bandwidth per capita grew 50 times; wireless bandwidth per capita grew 499 times and total consumer bandwidth per capita grew 84 times, for a compound annual growth rate of 74 percent.

Swanson estimates U.S. Internet traffic will continue to rise 50 percent annually through 2015. Cisco estimates wireless data traffic will rise 131 percent per year through 2013. That means hundreds of billions of dollars of new investment will be required.

So the question must be asked: "if network service providers can't design their own networks, offer creative services, or make fair business transactions with vendors, will they invest these massive sums to meet (and drive) demand?" Swanson rhetorically asks.

link

Revenue Sharing is the Heart of the Net Neutrality Matter

“The problem with mobile broadband so far has been most of the revenue it has generated has gone to over-the-top Internet content services, not to the operators,” says Pat McCarthy, Telcordia VP. “That’s what they are trying to change.”

And that is the heart of the matter as far as wrangling over network neutrality. Over time, consumers will have many options for buying customized wireless broadband plans, McCarthy says. And nearly everyone believes that will mean very-heavy users will have to pay more, in some way.

The key notion is that retail price will be related, in some way, to the cost of the services consumed. That doesn't necessarily mean billing by the byte, but probably a range of options for basic access that are similar to wireless voice plans, where users buy buckets of minutes or text messages a various prices, or unlimited use for higher prices.

Some have suggested pricing based on the value of services and applications and most providers tend to believe there should be the ability to buy optional services that maintain quality of service when the network is congested.

Standard users might get messages during peak congestion periods--perhaps rush hour or at a major sports or concert venue--that the network is congested, with their services shaped in some way. Premium users might get priority access and all users might be offered a temporary "power boost," for an additional fee, during the period of congestion.

link

Manassas Pulls Plug on "Broadband Over Powerline" Service

The Manassas City Council unanimously voted to discontinue offering its municipal broadband over Powerline access service. The Manassas service had been touted in the past as an example of how municipally-provided broadband service could succeed, as well as a proof of concept of the idea of using power lines as the access mechanism.

The shutfown affects about 520 residents and businesses who currently subscribe to the service, which will end in three months.

The council cited three reasons for the decision. First, customer penetration had been declining. Also, the service was costing more than it took in as revenue, and a determination that meter reading services do not require broadband access.

Observers note that the business case never proved as robust as expected. "It's costing a little more to maintain the system than we projected in the budget," Manassas Director of Utilities Michael Moon said. "The original projections were that the customer base would be double this."

The city has been running the service since the private operator, COMtek, found it also could not make a profit on the system.

In January 2009, there were 637 residential and 51 commercial BPL subscribers in Manassas. In February 2010, those numbers had shrunk to 457 residential and 50 commercial subscribers.

 The Utilities Commission said that the total revenue brought in by BPL for fiscal year 2010 was almost $186,000, but the expense of keeping up the City-owned system was costing the ratepayers a little more than $351,000, resulting in a net loss of almost $166,000.

"In October 2003, the Manassas City Council was told that it could expect as much as $4.5 million in revenue from awarding a 10-year BPL franchise," said American Radio Relay League CEO David Sumner. "Instead, six months later, BPL had turned into a money pit for the City of Manassas. Anyone thinking of investing in BPL would do well to learn from the Manassas experience."

source

Title II Debate Redux

If you were following debates over Federal Communications Commission policy relating to the Internet back in 2006, you might remember that we were debating whether the Internet, and broadband access, should continue to be regulated as other data services are, under Title I, or as common carrier services, under Title II.

The economic, financial and policy stakes are no less important this time around, as we might be setting up for yet another lengthy battle over how best to regulate broadband access. Lots has changed since 2006. Broadband access by fixed line networks has become a legacy service. Mobile broadband is about to explode. Application innovation arguably is more robust than it was in 2006, and almost all of the innovation has something to do with mobility, not the fixed line Internet.

Congress could "remedy" the situation by passing new laws directly the FCC to take regulatory control of broadband access services. A majority of Americans might regard almost any such congressional moves with derision, given the general contempt that institution now inspires in the overwhelming majority of Americans who are polled about their impressions of Congress.

National Broadband Plan: Where Does U.S. Rank? Where Can it Rank?

A six-spot gain to 9th place in international broadband rankings would be a successful outcome for the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, says the Phoenix Center.

Historical trends suggest the United States will likely move to 13th in broadband adoption by 2012 even without significant policy changes, however.

The new Phoenix Center study, "Evaluating Broadband Stimulus and the National Broadband Plan: Establishing Expectations for Broadband Rankings", uses a variety of standard econometric techniques to determine where the United States is expected to rank given current trends, and where the United States should rank if the National Broadband Plan and federal broadband stimulus are successful.

“As we point out in our prior research, relying upon the OECD’s flawed methodology as an
accurate metric of a country’s broadband performance is fraught with peril,” says Phoenix Center
President and study co-author Lawrence J. Spiwak. “However, as some policymakers continue to
use the OECD’s methodology as the definitive broadband metric, our analysis establishes a
performance metric by which to assess the success or failure of new broadband interventions using
the OECD’s rankings. In so doing, we hope that our analysis can make a positive contribution to
the debate by establishing a standard by which to measure the success of new policies.”

Many observers point to U.S. rankings on global indices of broadband penetration, cost or speeds as evidence that the United States is lagging behind other nations. But comparing very-large countries with very-small countries, with different population densities, government policies, household sizes and incomes is difficult.

For example, the United States ranks no better than 15trh in global measures of telephone density. But nobody really suggests the United States has a fixed-line voice availability problem. In fact, most observers say demand for that product is declining.

So where does the United States currently rank on per-capita measures of broadband penetration? 15th, as it turns out; precisely where it has long ranked in terms of fixed-line voice line penetration. If one is not a problem, why is the other?

more detail

National Broadband Plan is Mostly a "Grab Bag" of Proposals

There were few, if any surprises, when the Federal Communications Commission finally released its proposed "National Broadband Plan," whose centerpiece is an effort to free up about 500 megahertz of spectrum for wireless access. A modest amount of incremental spending for rural broadband is proposed. '

Perhaps the real story here is a recognition that not much really can be done, or perhaps ought to be done, about the existing fixed-line broadband access market, except to encourage existing providers to upgrade speeds.

National Broadband Plan Suggests Wireless Future

There are some fairly-significant implications one might draw from the Federal Communications Commission's proposal for National Broadband Policy. First of all, the plan explicitly relies on private capital and private firms to get the job done.

There are some important tweaks to funding of services rural high-cost areas, and a bit of new spending in other areas. But those are a gloss. The heavy lifting clearly is going to have to be done--or left undone--by private capital and existing service providers.

People can continue to advocate for, and support, alternative ways for getting things done, but there is at this moment no sense that radical changes in industry structure are possible. Some might argue that the country would be better off with a robust wholesale infrastructure, retail provider model, but that is not on the table.

The other really-significant implication is that the future will belong to wireless. In fact, the really-big proposal is to reallocate 500 megahertz of wireless spectrum away from TV broadcasting and to wireless communications.

In fact, though any of us might grumble that prices are too high and speeds too low, the FCC's own data suggests that "access" actually is not a problem, even restricting the definition to fixed networks.

The FCC says 78 percent of U.S. homes already have access to two broadband service providers. About four percent have a choice of three providers. Another 13 percent have at least one provider. Only five percent of homes do not have at least one fixed services provider. And, again, those estimates do not include two satellite broadband providers and between one to four mobile broadband providers as well.

Separately, the FCC notes that 77 percent of U.S. households already can buy service from three wireless broadband providers. Another 12 percent of homes have a choice of two mobile broadband providers, while none percent of homes have at least one mobile broadband service provider. Only two percent of U.S. homes cannot buy mobile broadband service.

For a variety of reasons, the FCC plan implicitly acknowledges that the current fixed broadband duopoly is about as good as it will get, and that, going forward, mobile broadband is the new battleground.

The FCC probably is completely right in that assessment. Mobility is the one industry segment that would have relatively little trouble attracting lots of new capital investment, and mobility is the one segment of the whole communications business that is exploding globally, not just in the United States.

Mobility is the segment where innovation already is the fastest, where new applications and devices are proliferating most rapidly, and where consumer interest and new adoption is highest.

Like it or not, the FCC always works within a political context. It has to work within the constraints of what is possible, and the emphasis on wireless is a clear reflection of those constraints. The FCC is smart enough to understand that, so long as private capital and private firms must drive the bulk of national investment and service provision, the agency must work within the constraints of the capital markets, which clearly signal that the perceived upside, and therefore investment interest, lie in wireless and over-the-top applications, not more wired infrastructure.

No Inevitable Need for Usage-Based Pricing, AT&T CEO Says

Usage-based wireless broadband pricing does not necessarily mean an end to unlimited-use plans, says AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. But it might mean plans that tie usage in some broad way to retail cost of service.

Consider the way mobile plans are sold today. There are some true "unlimited plans" for voice, data and text messaging. But there also are plans with buckets of usage that sell for various lower prices. That same content might well work for future broadband access plans as well.

PC-based wireless broadband users, for example, consume more bandwidth than smartphone users. It might therefore continue to be the case that unlimited use is more practical for smartphones than for PC dongle service.

At the same time, there also are existing precedents for fully unlimited use even for PC devices. Business-grade services such as T1 connections, for example, are unlimited-use services, but also sell for higher prices than typical consumer services.

Anthony Melone, chief technology officer at Verizon Wireless also suggested the U.S. wireless industry might not be able to wait 10 years for additional spectrum of the sort the Federal Communications Commission now hopes to entice TV broadcasters to part with. "They need to have something in the five-year time line."

Perhaps the most interesting comment is Stephenson's take on the continued role for fixed broadband capacity. Stephenson says wireless capacity issues would maintain a role for fixed-line connections "at least in his lifetime."

That suggests even Stephenson can envision a time when fixed connections are not nearly as relevant as they are today.

link to source