Mobile VoIP Proliferates

One wonders how long mobile carriers will wait before launching their own lower-cost global calling plans. At some point they will. The only issue is how much market share they are willing to tolerate losing to VoIP providers before they counterattack. Raketu is the latest contestant in the business calling space, by virtue of its compatibility with RIM BlackBerry devices.

What is emerging now is the IP equivalent of "over the top long distance" calling plans that used to be prevalent in the U.S. market. Under such plans, created in large part for reasons of regulatory compliance, users selected one provider for local calling and then another provider for long distance. At one point, one could not select one's local voice carrier for that purpose.

So you see the business effect: a regulatory framework creates an entire "long distance calling" business. It lasts for a while, as competition knocks prices way down. Then, at some point, regulators decide markets are competitive enough to allow the local phone companies back into long distance.

And then the independent long distance industry collapses.

VoIP over mobile, indeed VoIP itself, is headed for such a day of reckoning, at least for that portion of its use as a substitute for landline or wireless calling. Nobody knows when the day will come. It might come carrier by carrier. But at some point, mobile and wired service providers are going to reach a point where it makes sense to offer much-lower global calling from their existing services and devices.

That isn't to say independents will not gain share and build businesses in the short term. Nor is it to say VoIP features embedded into other experiences are likewise susceptible to telco repositioning and pricing. It is to say that past telco responses to regulatory and technologiccal change offer some obvious clues about what they will do in the future.

As scale players, they tend to ignore new threats and markets until some critical mass or clear strategic interest emerges. Then they move, and fairly quickly. They'll do so again.

Is VoIP Significant?

Some years ago, many observers were convinced VoIP would be "disruptive" to the global telecommunications industry. There's much less certainty now. In fact, one might ask: is VoIP mostly a better way to do voice, or just a new way? Mobile clearly is a new way, and might be disruptive in many ways. So is VoIP. But "different" isn't the same thing as "disruptive."

The global industry made a transition from analog to digital switching, as it earlier made a transition from mechanical to electronic switches. New services and efficiencies were gained in each of these transitions. But one can question whether the differences were transformational.

Likewise, most of the U.S. competitive local exchange carrier industry thought it was doing something revolutionary in buying its own Class 5 switches to compete with incumbents. As it turns out, that wasn't hugely disruptive.

These days, most tier one carriers earn only about 20 percent of total revenues from consumer voice, and not significantly higher percentages even if enterprise voice is included in the total.

The point is that "voice," though still hugely important as an end-user value, is less and less the revenue driver for the global industry. So VoIP is in many ways a much-better way to use voice, but such a smaller part of total revenues that it cannot strategically change industry dynamics, one way or the other, so long as a transition away from reliance on voice revenues is predictable.

There are precedents for that as well. Long distance revenues have been declining, in terms of revenue per minute, if not volume, for decades. But the industry had time to transition away from long distance as a driver of profits.

At this point, it certainly looks as though VoIP is more nearly the latest enhancement to basic voice, rather than a disruption. If anything, it is mobile that represents the big "disruption."

"Bulk Up or Sell" Key for Telcos, Media

The big global media and telecom companies face very similar business issues in some of their key lines of business. International calling rates are getting so competitive that only large players with scale will have the mass to make a go of it, says Stephan Beckert, Telegeography head of research.

Likewise, media comapnies such as like Vivendi, Time Warner and News Corp. are investing very heavily in gaming. In fact, some observers suspect that gaming will grow to be the biggest media business in time, and will and supplant older media to a significant degree. That is sort of the same position telephone companies find themselves facing with their core voice businesses.

Gaming is set to grow 40 percent in two years, many project. And bulk really confers advantages in game publishing, which has massive scale economics. A publisher that can guarantee over a million sales, with global distribution and quality marketing, has an immense advantage over a publisher that struggles to get to half a million sales.

Much the same sort of thing is happening in the U.S. competitive local exchange carrier industry as well, where scale has started to assume a key role as well. Basically, every executive has to decide whether to be a strategic seller or buyer.

Comcast Revs Up SME Effort

Comcast is kicking its business services initiative into higher gear. "Our total commercial revenue passed $100 million for the first time in the third quarter," says Steve Burke, Comcast COO. "We have hired and trained 750 business salespeople and trained 1,200 technicians to install and service business customers."

"Each of our 29 operating regions have now introduced Comcast business class as our commercial brand, supporting data, voice and television," he says. It will take some time for Comcast to iron out all the wrinkles, just as it took some time to fine tune the digital voice effort.

Some of you will remember a few stumbles Cisco took when it got into the IP communications business. The point is that as capable as they are, it will take some time before cable shows its ultimate skill. But it will.

How Much More Can Vonage Take?

And what is the exposure for other independent providers of VoIP services? Not to mention software and hardware providers, though the dominant carriers are unlikely to sue their suppliers.

AT&T filed a lawsuit against VoIP provider Vonage Oct. 19 seeking damages for alleged patent infringement.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a Vonage settlement with Sprint Nextel over patent infringement as well, and against an as-yet-unresolved patent infraction case filed by Verizon. Vonage also appears to have settled another legal dispute with Klausner Technologies, a small company with patents on voice mail technology, for an undisclosed sum.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, at&t says Vonage willfully infringed an at&t patent related to telephone systems that allow people to make VoIP calls using standard telephone devices.

So far, Vonage's patent-related payments are north of $80 million, as Vonage announced on Oct. 8 that it settled its suit with Sprint Nextel for $80 million. As part of that agreement, Vonage agreed to license VoIP patents from Sprint, including more than 100 patents covering technology for connecting calls from a traditional phone network to an IP network. And then there is the Klausner settlement.

Vonage is also in the process of resolving a patent infringement dispute with Verizon. Unfortunately, of course, the Sprint Nextel settlement and the ultimate Verizon settlement will set a precedent likely requiring Vonage to settle with at&t as well. That will likely bump Vonage's patent payments well above $100 million in total.

And if Vonage is infringing patents held by all three giants, what are the odds other VoIP providers are immune? As for the giants, they'll simply cross-license. For everybody else, the warning is pretty clear: get too much success and you will be sued. So one wonders when the assault against cable companies will come. After all, if one wishes to slow down competitors, messing around with Vonage is okay if it creates the foundation for the bigger assault against cable. But Vonage isn't a telco incumbent's big problem in any case.

It is a sobering thought: all the other independent VoIP providers other than cable are much smaller than Vonage. What chance do they have if any conceivable profit goes to pay lawyers and settlement fees?

Skype Valued at $1.7 Billion

Skype is worth $1.7 billion, based on charges EBay has taken both for the Skype acquisition and payments to outgoing CEO Niklas Zennstrom, who has left EBay.

Since the second quarter, EBay CEO Meg Whitman has made clear its concern that Skype is not delivering financial results on the scale EBay had expected.

At the time of the acquisition, eBay and analysts trumpeted the move as a way to increase higher end auction sales by making it simple to connect buyers and sellers by voice. So far, it appears the synergies haven't materialized in any significant way.

Skype also has more competition these days from alternate providers offering calling from mobile handsets and standard analog telephones that provide a reasonable alternative for some applications.

PC-based calling remains the Skype mainstay, despite the availability of Skype-compliant phones, as probably had to be expected. There's nothing wrong with that. But the consumer electronics industry has proven the difficulty of getting mass adoption of specialized appliances of all sorts.

Then again, unified communications and messaging now have the attention in the business space, while video and audio get the attention in the consumer space. VoIP also is a victim of its own success. Now that it has become a mainstream product, it is, well, just a product.

Also, beyond obvious cost savings in the enterprise, small, medium business and consumer spaces, it might be hard to argue that VoIP has had the impact of text messaging, instant messaging, simultaneous ring, visual voice mail or "presence." True, some of those features are enabled by or enriched by VoIP, but the value is harder to convey in a marketing message, at least in the North American market.

We seem to have moved beyond the simple "cheap calling" stage and into a much more complex "new capability" stage in some sense. But that's a harder, more complex sell with a longer adoption cycle.

On the other hand, the market for IP-based replacement of voice lines is quite large, in comparison.

In its most recent quarter, Skype booked $90 million in revenue. Assume Skype does not worse than that for a whole year, generating $360 million in revenue. Attributing just $20 a month in revenue for U.S. digital voice accounts, and assuming just four million U.S. subs, the U.S. cable industry is earning $960 million a year selling VoIP services.

Even beleaguered Vonage, at its present pace, will book revenue of $784 million over a year.

Time Warner Fires Opening Salvo

Though Comcast won't start firing its guns until early 2008, the U.S. cable industry has begun its assault on small business customer accounts. Time Warner Cable has rolled out a phone service for small and medium-size businesses in Central Ohio.

Time Warner introduced its Business Class phone service in the Columbus area Sept. 21.

A Time Warner analysis estimated there is a $40 billion market for business phone service in the company's eight-state service area, $9 billion of which is made up of small and mid-size companies, according to Ted Stine, Time Warner VP.

Time Warner first is targeting its existing business customers in the region who already subscribe to the company's Internet and cable video services. Companies that sign up for phone service will then get a discount on all their services. Once it has saturated that segment, Time Warner obviously will start cold calling prospects who have not existing business relationship with the company.

The biggest share shift should occur in the small business segment (four and five access lines, especially), though most observers would define the segment as "four to eight lines."

Telcos and Web Communications: Who Wins?

Attention might not be the basis for every revenue model, but it clearly underpins most media businesses. It might underpin other businesses as well, including communications.

So note changes in how and where people in France are spending their "communications" time. Since 2000, attention and time spent have been shifting towards Web-based applications and pursuits, and away from telephone-based communications. To be more precise, 53 percent of "communications" or more might be said to originate in some Web related activity, not a classic "pick up the phone" activity.

Time isn't exactly money, so attention and usage do not translate immediately into revenue. But attention sooner or later will create the possibility of revenue. And if this sort of shift in how people communicate continues, revenue opportunities and potential inevitably will shift.

That doesn't mean revenue-generating endpoints such as mobile phones, other communicating devices or "access" services will stop proliferating. It simply is to point out that when so much communications activity originates in Web-based things, whether enterprise or consumer driven, something new will happen, revenue-wise. It has to.

Vonage Loses Sprint Lawsuit, Has to Pay $69.5 Million

A federal jury has ordered Vonage Holdings Corp. to pay $69.5 million in damages for infringing on six telecommunications patents owned by competitor Sprint Nextel Corp.

Vonage also will have to pay a 5 percent royalty on future revenues. If neither this decision nor Vonage's Verizon patent infringement decisions are overturned, 10.5 percent of Vonage's recurring revenue will have to be paid out in damages to Verizon and Sprint together.

The upfront damage awards are hefty enough. The recurring 10.5 percent of gross revenue that will be lost might be more significant.

Vonage says it would appeal the decision but would also begin developing technological workarounds that it said would skirt the disputed technology.

Earlier this year Vonage also was ordered to pay Verizon $58 million in damages plus 5.5 percent royalties on future revenues. That decision also is under appeal.

Between the distractions (getting the work-arounds into place; the cost of further appeals), vigorous competition from cable companies and the damage payments, I suppose one now has to wonder whether Vonage can pull out of a dangerous spiral.

Global Voice Traffic Keeps Growing

Despite all the new ways people can talk to each other, and all the other ways people can communicate using text, global voice traffic keeps growing at a steady rate, according to TeleGeography.

Is Voice the Killer App for IMS?

You have seen this story before: a new service rolls out and providers look for the "killer app." Then it turns out the killer app is something people already do, but the innovation allows them to do it in a new way, or maybe a better way.

To some extent, voice is a bit of that sort of thing for broadband Internet access, as email was something approaching a killer app for dial-up Internet access. Though the initial "killer app" for broadband was fast Internet access, voice becomes a very important incremental value.

"We are seeing a pattern in Europe of VoIP being delivered by companies that control the broadband infrastructure," notes Stephan Beckert, TeleGeography analyst. "It's an add-on feature to broadband."

So what is the killer app for fixed-mobile services? It's voice again, allowing legacy providers to hang on to more of their fixed-line business than otherwise; allowing mobile providers to displace landline traffic with mobile; or new providers to displace business phone systems.

So what is the killer app for IP Multimedia Subsystems? Wouldn't it be surprising if it turned out to be voice?

So what's the logic? Assume wireline carriers might lose as much as $13 billion in annual revenues by 2011, in part because 34 percent of U.S. households might elect to go "mobile only." So enter IMS, allowing mobile users to take advantage of cheaper Wi-Fi-based calling over their broadband lines.

Assume the landline carriers then lose just $8 billion in revenue to cord cutters. That's a $5 billion annual revenue stream. So put that in perspective. All U.S. multichannel video providers put together earn about $4 billion a year from pay-per-view and video-on-demand services.

So if wireline carriers just prevent landline erosion, they make more money than the whole U.s. VOD and PPV providers put together.

Who Will Create the "Conference in a Pocket" Phone?

The rumored Google Phone will have to carve out a niche beyond "smart phone" or "feature phone" to get any serious traction. Perhaps it can create a new dual-mode position, since nobody really has that one nailed down yet. It might be a stretch to create a position based on "location based services," since it is doubtful most people will understand that.

But some new developments elsewhere suggest it might ultimately be possible for somebody to capture a new "conference in my pocket" position. Webex now has created an iPhone compatible PCNow capability, opening a bit of a wedge for conferencing. And iotum says it will develop a conference app running on BlackBerry and Facebook.

The point is not simply the size of the niche, but the ability to create a buyer reason to use one service or terminal instead of others. There are lots of devices that handle email. But BlackBerry created and "owns" the "email in your pocket" mental niche. That doesn't mean only the BlackBerry can do this, but that the mental position creates a compelling reason to buy and use a BlackBerry even though other smart phones can do so. The iPhone's position still is developing, though the initial positioning is as a fashionista device.

The point is that the creation of a compelling mental positioning allows a device or service to stand out in a crowd of alternatives that arguably can provide the same basic functionality. A "conference in your pocket" device can provide the same sorts of marketing value.

Voice From Inside Facebook

Pat Phelan points out that there are perhaps nine voice applications users can launch from inside Facebook, including GrandCentral, RebMe by Rebtel, Phonebook by Jangl, MyPhone by Jaxtr, SkypeMe, One Minute Friend, Yakpack, Sitofono and the new conferencing application for Facebook released by iotum.

Cisco Predicts Exabyte Networks

Cisco's recent forecast of global IP bandwidth consumption suggests a 37 percent cumulative average growth rate between 2006 and 2011, or about five times the 2006 level. That's aggressive, but you might expect that. You might even have expected the prediction that consumer usage will outstrip business usage, though business dominates at the moment. You wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that video will drive overall global usage.

You wouldn't necessarily be surprised to learn that Cisco forecasts at least 60 percent of all traffic will be commercial video delivered in the form of walled garden services. And a significant percentage of the remaining 40 percent of IP bandwidth will be consumed by IP-based video applications.

The next network, in other words, will be a video network that also carries voice and non-real-time data.

That would be a stunning change from the originally envisioned view of the Internet. But I think we have to recognize at this point that virtually none of the key developments in communications technology have developed as industry insiders, public policy proponents, technologists or entrepreneurs had supposed.

To be sure, all of the diligent work on Session Initiation Protocol will have a significant payoff. But that didn't stop Skype by rocketing past SIP using a proprietary approach.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to lead to an explosion of innovation by dismantling restrictions on "who" could be a provider of Class 5 switch services. Instead, innovation came from the Web. Perhaps despite the Telecom Act, all sorts of innovation has happened.

VoIP was supposed to transform the nature of communications. Instead, mobility, instant messaging and social networks are doing so. One might arguably look to all manner of text communications as the disruptive communications development of the past several decades, not voice.

And then there's electronic numbering and voice peering. Perhaps these approaches still will have some dramatic impact on global voice communications prices and ability to circumvent the "public network." But it's starting to look as though ENUM might be a next generation to provide the signaling system 7 function. That's not to say it is unimportant: only to say it was not what many had intended or expected.

So far, it would seem that the most disruptive impact of the whole basket of new technologies has been to disrupt our ability to predict the future. We've been wrong more than right, as we always are. IP networks are not now, and never will be, as closed as the old public network was. Neither are IP networks going to be "open," any-to-any networks in the old manner, with no intelligence or policies operating in the core of the network.

Lots of things can, and should, be done "at the edge." But increasingly, lots of things cannot. The transition of the global IP network to video also means a shift to real time services (and we aren't even talking about the same process at work for voice and visual collaboration). That spells the end of the completely "dumb network."

Are Landlines Becoming a Giffen Good?

Widespread use of VoIP tends to cause voice prices to fall. And classical economic theory would suggest that consumption of wireline calling should increase, as a result. In some cases that seems to be what happens. People call globally more often when the prices are lower.

But it just is possible,under some specific circumstances,for price declines to cause reduced consumption.

A Giffen good, for example, is an “inferior” good for which a rise in its price makes people buy even more of the product as its price rises. Conversely, there is less demand as price falls. To be sure, such Giffen goods are exceedingly rare. But one is tempted, when looking a mobile versus fixed line calling, to ask whether there are not some similarities.

Mobile calling now leads wired connections by a three-to-one margin globally and more people are shifting to "wireless only" calling. And though it is a loose analogy, perhaps we might think of mobile calling as a "superior" product and wireline calling as an "inferior" good, not in terms of intrinsic worth but in terms of the way people consume each product.

Giffen goods are named after Sir Robert Giffen, who was attributed as the author of this idea by Alfred Marshall in his book Principles of Economics. The classic example of potato consumption during a famine now is viewed as unsupported.

But in July, Robert T. Jensen, an economist at Brown University, and Nolan H. Miller, a professor of public policy at Harvard University, published an article for the National Bureau of Economic Research on Giffen goods.

The two economists say they have located a real-world Giffen good, namely rice and wheat flour in the central Hunan and Gansu provinces of China.

As Giffen suggested more than 100 years ago, goods whose price and demand move in the same direction are most likely to be essential products such as food on which households spend a large part of their incomes (and that's why neither VoIP nor landline voice service can be called Giffen goods in a formal sense).

Wheat flour and rice fit the bill in central China. When the price of the good falls, households appear to shift buying to meat. So lower prices cause less consumption.

Jensen and Miller look at poor Chinese consumers and demonstrate that they consume more rice or noodles, their staples, as prices go up.

Still, neither VoIP nor landlines strictly meet the criteria for consideration as Giffen goods. But it is an interesting notion. Might lower landline calling prices caused by VoIP actually lead to lower usage, in the presence of mobile alternatives that might be likened to “superior” goods, as compared to landline which might be thought of as an “inferior” good?

If so, lower landline calling prices will simply hasten the transition to more preferred mobile calling. I wouldn't push the loose analogy too far. But there some parallels.

As the chart suggests, consumers can buy either commodity Y or commodity X (line MN,where M = total available income divided by the price of commodity Y, and N = total available income divided by the price of commodity X).

The line MN is the consumer's budget constraint.

If there is a drop in the price of commodity X, the reduced price will alter relative prices in favour of commodity X, known as the substitution effect. This is illustrated by a movement down the indifference curve from point A to point B.

At the same time, the price reduction causes the consumers' purchasing power to increase, the income effect (line MP where P = income divided by the new price of commodity X).

The substitution effect (point A to point B) raises the quantity demanded of commodity X from Xa to Xb while the income effect lowers the quantity demanded from Xb to Xc.

The net effect is a reduction in quantity demanded from Xa to Xc making commodity X a Giffen good by definition.

SME VoIP: 30 Percent Annual Growth

IP Lines being installed into small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) will grow 30 percent a year over the next five years, according to the Dell'Oro Group. IP lines will grow from slightly less than 20 percent of lines shipments into SME locations in 2006 to almost 60 percent in 2011.

In contrast, digital and analog line shipments will decline at an average of 10 percent a year through 2011. Traditional systems will fair even worse, declining to less that 5 percent of the total market by 2011, Dell'Oro says.

This might be the least controversial forecast it is possible to make. Once analog-to-digital transitions really get going, it is hard to buy the older technology even if one really wants it.

BlackBerry Outage Disrupts Enterprise Ops

In a webinar poll conducted April 18 by ProfitIine, 81 percent of responding large enterprise IT and telecom professionals reported disruption to operations from the BlackBerry outage. Some 44.5 percent reported "moderate or substantial" impact to enterprise productivity. Only 18.2 percent reported no impact from the outage.

Good for Users, Not for Service Providers...

Businesses can use fixed mobile convergence and VoIP to slash more than 30 per cent from their communications spend, according to researchers at Analysys. How? The same way prices have dropped in other areas of communications: bypass of the public networks.

"Companies are spending over 80 per cent of their call bill on mobile services," says Margaret Hopkins Analsys analyst. That's not surprising, if you consider that most people get mobiles sometime in their teens, and keep using them as they get older, as eMarketer suggests.

One Trillion VoIP Minutes

Some 1,079 billion minutes of VoIP traffic were carried by service providers around the world last year, says ILocus. The data suggest over half of calls were for long distance national calls. Separate estimates by TeleGeography suggest global VoIP minutes amounted to just short of 72 billion minutes last year.

There were 37.5 million voice over broadband subscribers, an increase of 16.5 million subscribers over the year. The biggest growth occurred in the U.S., French and German markets.

In the VoIP equipment market, softswitch and media gateways sales generated combined revenues of $2.2 billion - with 36.9 million Class 5 softswitch licences, 34.8 million Class 4 softswitch licences and 48.2 million service provider media gateway ports sold worldwide.

Feature Creep: We're Doing Something Wrong

Anybody familiar with the vast array of features available on a Class 5 switch or a private branch exchange can tell you that most buyers of such platforms never deploy most of the features. Of the features deployed, most end users never use them. The same appears to be true even of the more restricted features available on mobile phones. Most cell phone customers don't use the camera, email, or gaming options offered by their wireless providers, according a survey by JD Power and Associates. Most are satisfied when they can simply place a call efficiently.

Survey respondents said they use the speakerphone option more than any other, but only 26 per cent of respondents said they used this function. Only 19 per cent of people say they use the camera on their mobile and a mere 16 per cent opt to play games. True, behavior is changing. But after decades of exposure, most end users use but a handful of features available from their advanced phone switches. There's a lesson there.