Verizon Launches 7 Mbps Service

Verizon has launched a new 7 Mbps broadband access service availabe in about 400 Verizon-served communities. Prices begin at $39.99 for contract plans. Verizon will expand the program into more communities throughout the year.

Verizon Shifts to GPON

Verizon has begun installing Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) optoelectronics as part of its FiOS deployments in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas. GPON will replace the former broadband passive optical network (BPON) technology Verizon has been using up to this point. Users won't notice anything different, at least at first.

In years to come, they well might. BPON delivers 622 Mbps to 32 potential users in the downstream, with a shared 155 Mbps in the upstream.
GPON supports 2.4Gbps downstream and 1.2Gbps upstream that can be shared among 32 to 64 users. Basically, that means a downstream bandwidth increase of four times and an upstream improvement of eight times.

At some level, GPON is a logical and improved enhancement to BPON technology, and its price now is closer to BPON than was the case some years ago. At another level, the move is protection against the cable industry's upcoming upgrade to Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification 3.0, which will support channel bonding and shared downstream bandwidth as high as 160 Mbps.

Depending on customer take rates, the FiOS GPON network can support much more bandwidth that DOCSIS 3.0, absent some sort of major network upgrade by a cable operator.

So long as on-demand techniques are used to deliver video, most of the additional bandwidth can be allocated for other data-focused uses. As this chart from the IEEE shows, after video, it is data demand which grows most.

HDTV Slingbox: More Stress on Upstream Bandwidth

Sling Media has announced a new version of its Slingbox Pro set-top box that has its own HD TV tuner and can send out a 1080i HD picture over the network. The Slingbox Pro-HD will be initially aimed at the U.S. market.

So forget about what P2P is doing to the backbone and access networks. Now users will be streaming HDTV from their homes, stressing the entire network at its biggest chokepoint: the upstream. Ouch!

Business Broadband: Cable Modems Significant

Businesses use all sorts of access technology, if a recent Aethera Networks poll is to be believed. As you might guess, more than a quarter of business users have Time Division Multiplex access while more than a third use Ethernet of some sort.

You might not be surprised that more than a quarter use cable modems or Digital Subscriber Line, especially business-class DSL. What is interesting is that cable modem technology shows up in such surveys of the small business space. In fact, at least some business owners tell me they replaced T1 lines with cable modem service, and are happy they did.

Google Threat to Telcos: How Real?

Yesterday at the Stealth Communications Voice Peering Forum, there was spirited discussion about Google, and on Google's impact on the broader telecom industry. One line of thinking was that Google wasn't as big an issue as sometimes thought, because the one thing it really has succeeded at is advertising. The implication is that Google will not, or cannot, emerge as a force in the mobile or landline parts of the telecom industry.

The other point of view is that Google already has become a factor, even if it is only as a force reshaping all of advertising.

Likewise, some people are going to argue that Verizon Wireless and at&t Wireless announcements about the openness of their networks are essentially "no big deal." Customers already could swap Subscribe Information Modules" in at&t and T-Mobile phones because both carriers use GSM, and that's just a feature of a GSM network.

That misses the point. The entire U.S. wireless industry now has formally and publicly embraced the notion of open networks. There won't now be any retreat from that position, as end users increasingly will expect it, as every consumer expects such openness in Europe.

And though it sometimes seems as though all essential regulatory debates have ended in the U.S. market, the converse is true. In large part because of what now is happening in Europe, policymakers ultimately are going to have to reexamine the basic national framework for telecom regulation in the U.S. market.

The argument that a capital strike is inevitable in any "functional separation" regime, or a "structural separation" regime, does not seem to be borne out in the European markets. Carriers might not like the framework, as it is helpful to competitors. But dire consequences: a capital strike that cripples robust broadband access deployment, does not seem to be occurring in Europe, where such a strike might have happened.

That is not an endorsement of "anti-telco" restrictions. What is required is some encouraging, stable policy that provides clear incentives for rapid, aggressive optical access investment on the part of the leading U.S. telcos, and assures their investors that a predictable return is possible. "Structural" or "functional" separation essentially can "guarantee" a carrier that most wired broadband traffic (other than cable's) will flow over the carrier's owned pipes.

In essence, regulators can ensure that nearly 100 percent of broadband access traffic. other that that provided by cable operators, flows over the incumbent wired telecom network. Granted, the U.S. and European markets are diverging. Cable is a big factor in the U.S. market and is driving measurable and effective competition to a large extent.

The issue is whether some sort of separation can be crafted that actually creates a better investment climate for incumbent optical access facilities. That isn't the way separation traditionally has been viewed. But circumstances might be changing. A company whose "reason for living" is the "best possible optical access", serving virtually every potential retail competitor, with reasonable assurances of a return on investment, might be worth looking at.

The analysis will not be easy. Cable is a huge "fact on the ground". It might be too late to create a regime where all retail services flow over one huge physical access network. Also, cable operators historically have resisted giving up their networks. But there's a cost to upgrading those networks, and the financial markets never like it when cablers have to invest heavily in those networks.

But even large global carriers are discovering that spending more of their dear capital on transport facilities might not be the best way to proceed. It might seem improbable at the moment that such a fundamental new debate is possible. But give matters a couple of years. Demand for access bandwidth is going to explode. Carriers, with the exception of Verizon, will need to respond.

Financial markets will need reassurance. Maybe the current regime continues to work. But maybe it doesn't. Watch the European markets. If bandwidth demand continues to explode, and European end users start to routinely receive much more bandwidth than U.S. consumers do, there will be an inevitable demand for doing something in the U.S. market.

Broadband Access Revenue: Bad News

Broadband access penetration might be climbing just about everywhere. Unfortunately, it looks like revenue is going to fall significantly, if Yankee Group analyst Vince Vittore is right. He projects Digital Subscriber Line revenue, which represents the overwhelming share of global revenue, is set to fall precipitously.

You might think fiber-to-home (OLT)revenue or cable modem revenue (CMTS) is poised to take up the slack. Vittore doesn't think so.

It looks like broadband access is turning out to be a product just like the Internet: useful, ubiquitous, necessary and something service providers can't make much money on.

Telcos Practice "Strategic Indifference"

People who like the idea of rapid service and applications innovation typically are frustrated by the glacial speed at which network services operators move. In fact, the thought often arises that "pipes" companies, especially those dealing with actual "first mile" connections to actual users, are incapable of understanding threats to their business models.

Well, they do move slowly, compared with anything in the software world. There is no Moore's Law at work with construction, trenching, installing drop wires and network interfaces. Which explains the attractiveness of wireless alternatives.

That said, it also is true that incumbents do practice "strategic indifference." That is to say, they will seemingly ignore a threat such as VoIP, just as they seemingly ignored the advent of broadband access, in the form of Digital Subscriber Line and cable modem services.

You might not remember, but North American carriers were slow to understand mobility as well. As awareness grew, carriers simply bought the whole wireless industry.

The point is that the indifference is quite planned. If an innovation will harm current revenues, it makes business sense to plan to lose some market share and revenue rather than embrace the trend fully and lose even more money. Up to a point, incumbents will let attackers take share, on purpose.

If the innovation reaches a tipping point, where there are strategic drivers, incumbents simply pile on in a massive way. That's why the VoIP activity on the part of North American incumbents is so different from that of European carriers. In Europe, VoIP is past the tipping point, and incumbents must play. That point hasn't yet been reached in North America.

When the tipping point is reached, they'll move, and aggressively. But this is a matter of maximizing total revenue. If revenue is maximized by delaying VoIP, that's what carriers will do. If revenue is maximizing by making POTS more attractive, that's what they'll do.

Such carrier behavior is not "dumb." It is planned. In fact, other industries have been "dumb."

In fact, the music industry seems not to have understood the threat or the changes posed by digital media.

You can be quite sure the video industry has learned from that experience and is anything but complacent. No serious video executive takes user-generated content lightly. Everybody is taking steps to participate in a broader media landscape, though nobody yet knows how the business models will play out.

Of course, that also means nobody is going to sneak up on video incumbents. They know exactly where to look for opportunities and threats, and are doing so. IP video will not be a replay of VoIP, in terms of executive denial, simply because tipping points might be somewhat clearer, and because change in the video software space will not entail the massive capital spending carriers must yet contend with in migrating to a broadband, all-IP future.

Video contestants will move faster than you might think.

Global Broadband Access Prices

Average prices in October 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In the U.S. market, speeds keep going up and prices down.

Charter Communications, for example, will be upgrading speeds in most of its markets over the next three-to-four months. Charter's 3 Mbps tier will be bumped to 5 Mbps, the 5 Mbps service will be upgraded to 10 Mbps service and the company's 10 Mbps tier will be boosted to 16 Mbps downstream and 2 Mbps upstream. Prices apparently will vary by market.

Verizon in October launched a new tier of symmetric internet access service over its FiOS network that increases upstream and downstream speed up to 20 Mbps.

New Qwest FTTN Plan

Though it might be said to be a baby step, Qwest Communications has decided to up capital spending by an incremental $200 million over the next two years to bring 20 Mbps service to 1.5 million customer dwellings. The fiber-to-node plan obviously will rely on Digital Subscriber Line of some sort for the drop, but Qwest did not specify which particular approach it has in mind. It could use ADSL2 or VDSL, of course.

Basically, the company, which normally spends between $70 million and $100 million on fiber-to-node access plant, is incrementally spending the extra $200 million to pick up the tempo.

In a bit of a twist, Qwest will not deliver linear entertainment video over the network, relying instead on its DirecTV satellite service for that. Instead, it really sees the FTTN upgrade as a data services play.

As is always the case, investors seem not to like the idea. They didn't like Verizon's FiOS plan or fiber-to-customer plans launched by independent providers in France, for example. Investors fear Comcast and other cable companies will wind up spending more money on upgrades of their own as well.

Qwest is doing the right thing. Bandwidth is the reason any terrestrial wireline network has for existing. Failure to invest in bandwidth means business death. Sure, investor expectations have to be managed. But were in up to the investors Qwest would pay out a dividend and condemn itself to ulimate bankruptcy.

The program is not nearly as sweeping as upgrade programs underway at Verizon and at&t. Qwest simply can't afford that. But neither can Qwest sit still and do nothing. Investors might finally be seeing the fruits of at&t and Verizon investments in broadband infrastructure. They will see the same at Qwest, as unpopular as the investments are.

FiOS Goes 20 Mbps Symmetrical

Some residents of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey now are able to buy Verizon's new symmetrical 20 Mbps FiOS service. The 20/20 service costs $64.99 per month and includes Verizon's Internet Security Suite and 1 GByte of online backup (up to 50GB can be purchased.

A small business version is certain to be offered. Can you guess what this will do to T1 demand and pricing where the offer is available?

How Long Can Cable Keep Prices Up?

For years, cable companies boasted the fastest residential broadband speeds, allowing them to resist lowering their prices. But that pricing stability may be changing, according to a new analysis by market research house Pike & Fischer.

For an expanding number of homes, at&t and Qwest can match or exceed cable offerings with downstream speeds up to 7 megabits per second. And with the launch of its fiber-based FiOS service, Verizon now can exceed cable modem speeds at competitive prices in a growing number of markets.

For customers signing a contract, FiOS delivers speeds of 5 to 10 Mbps downstream and 2 Mbps upstream for $40, and 15 to 20 Mbps downstream and 2 to 5 Mbps upstream for $50, note analysts at Pike & Fischer. Verizon has also begun offering FiOS "triple-play" service bundles priced below $100. This is forcing cable operators in FiOS markets to respond.

Significant downward price pressure will be the result. Cablers soon will find out that in capacity and access markets, unlike some content businesses, the typical and expected trend is lower prices over time.

Broadband costs: Fiber Helps!

Fiber to the home helps, obviously. In the U.S. market, it helps to be a Verizon customer where FiOS is deployed, or to live within the SureWest Communications footprint. Make a note, though: this is actually a megabit per second (Mbps) metric, not a Mbyte metric. Apparently we are dealing with a technologically challenged journalist. The original data from the foundation make clear that we are talking about Mbps, not Mbytes.

Internet Phobia?

BT wants to find out why some people, even living in homes with broadband connections, resist using the Internet. About 39 percent of U.K. households do not have Web access. Fear of technology might be one reason, BT theorizes.

To acquaint them with online life, four subjects have been given a broadband link, a laptop, webcam and a digital camera. A two-month training plan has also been developed that will introduce them to what they can do on the Internet.

Writ large, that's one way to deal with any lingering short term "digital divide." Long term, I don't think there's a problem. There used to be a joke several decades ago in the U.S. cable TV industry about "resisters." Basically, the punch line is that the "resisters" are dying. There was a clear shift in the character of demand for television that now has fully established itself, as tough as it might have been to get the new behavior established in the first place.

The same thing is going to happen with broadband. Demand simply is shifting. All of which suggests BT ultimately will move beyond its fiber-to-cabinet; copper drop strategy and move ahead with a full fiber-to-customer upgrade. Like any other tier one service provider it is going to hold out for the most favorable deal it can get from regulators. But there's not much doubt about the long term outcome.

Bandwidth consumption is going to outstrip anything all the wireless networks together can provide, which makes the fiber connections an essential part of the future bandwidth story.

U.S. cable operators used to "diss" switched digital video" as well. Now they're starting to embrace it. They still say in public that fiber-to-home networks are way too expensive, and are unnecessary, from a cable standpoint. That's not necessarily what executives think privately, though.

Nor is it the case that resisters stay that way forever. Those of you with grandparents, who are grandparents or who have pre-baby boomer relatives know that mobile phones, PCs, cable and Internet connections frequently are used daily by people who might be prime "resisters." And the people who move them into the "connected" camp are friends, children and grandchildren. So BT might consider a "friends and family" program that enlists other family members in providing training and support for resisters. That's the way it works anyway.

Verizon FiOS Getting Ready to Blow Down Doors

Readers of ComputerWorld might not be "typical" U.S. consumers. Neither might members of the ChangeWave Alliance, as both will skew much more heavily into the technological savvy end of the customer spectrum. But there's growing evidence that at least for these lead elements of the technology-buying and influencing market, Verizon's FiOS is poised to take significant share.

Not that "satisfaction" is any guarantee of loyalty, but FiOS customers seem significantly happier than Comcast cable modem customers, for example. And on the "I'm going to switch" front, limited FiOS availability, like limited iPhone stock, has depressed sales. That will change, if ChangeWave member sentiments are any indication.

In fact, of users who say they are going to change video providers, the percentage of users who say they intend to switch to FiOS or another fiber-to-customer service is 300 percent higher than the percentage of users that say they will switch to cable for TV service.

So Verizon and at&t simply have to get their networks in front of more customers.

ISP Subscriber Growth Favors Tier One Providers

Not that anybody should be surprised by the latest ISP subscriber figures, but large tier one telco and cable providers are racking up more market share while independent mass market providers are losing share. The one countervailing trend is that providers focused on the small and mid-sized business, such as Covad, continue to grow.

For those of you familiar with the SME space, it is, always has been and always will be a fertile segment for independent providers of all sorts. The latest ISP figures only confirm that observation, again.

Defanged Skype

For all the fear Skype and other IM-based and peer to peer voice applications and services have created in the broader service provider industry, Skype seems to have crested. Skype still has lots of registered users, but they don't seem to be calling and using Skype chat as much as they used to.

Remember the concern municipal Wi-Fi networks raised just two years ago? Telcos and cable companies were worried muni Wi-Fi would cannibalize cable modem and Digital Subscriber Line services. And dare we even mention Vonage and other independent VoIP providers.

In fact, the only threat that really has materialized is cable companies. At least in North America, cable companies have emerged as the most serious threat to wireline voice and broadband Internet access revenue streams. Everything else essentially has remained a flea bite.

On the video and audio content side, remember the hackles BitTorrent and Kazaa raised? Now we have iTunes, Joost and a legal BitTorrent working with content owners.

So what conclusions should one draw from all of this? Probably that "disrupting" powerful incumbents is going to be much harder than attackers once had believed. Bandwidth exchanges thought they'd reshape interconnection. Competitive local exchange carriers thought they'd capture a goodly portion of the wireline voice market. Independent DSL providers thought they'd catch the telcos sleeping. Internet Service Providers thought the same about dial-up.

Turns out incumbents have more resiliency than anybody might have thought.

EarthLink San Francisco Network Now Toast

EarthLink will not be providing free wireless Internet access throughout San Francisco. As promised, EarthLink is not proceeding with any new muncipal Wi-Fi networks when it has to pay the full cost of construction, as would have been the case in San Francisco.

Under the original deal, EarthLink would have invested $14 million to $17 million to build the network. EarthLink also expected to be able to charge $22 a month for a premium tier of service.

San Francisco officials probably will issue another proposal request. And EarthLink conceivably could get additional sponsors. But it's getting tough to make the numbers work when tethered broadband rates now are so affordable. In cities where muni Wi-Fi networks are in operation, or have been proposed, it isn't unusual to find tiers of service comparable to Wi-Fi available for $10 to $15 a month.

Also, as video becomes a more important part of the Internet experience, muni Wi-Fi networks just aren't going to be able to keep up.

What EarthLink Didn't Say...

..in announcing a cut of 40 percent of its current workforce, a tactical move, was what it intends to do about a business strategy with no focus. And that was what EarthLink remains mum about. Helio and municipal Wi-Fi are bleeding cash; broadband is slowing and dial-up is dying.

One thing EarthLink did say is that gross subscriber additions will decelerate in 2008, in part because EarthLink will stop marketing to customer segments it believes likely to churn.

There's something else. The company expects fewer migrations from narrowband to broadband. Why? Because, industrywide, the pool of people using narrowband who want to upgrade to broadband is nearing exhaustion. And the number who see little value in owning and using PCs obviously won't be candidates for narrowband or broadband access.

We rapidly are approaching the point where the "problem" of broadband adoption is no longer a "problem" of access, but a problem of "demand." There just aren't that many more people who want broadband and can't get it. Which means the marketing battler will refocus, as it always does in saturated markets, on upselling more services and features and stealing market share from somebody else.

All things being equal, a facilities-based access platform typically beats a leased-access platform. But there's one more essential ingredient. There have to be customers. In the fixed broadband access market, we are running out of customers.

Verizon FiOS Blows Away Competition

A recent survey of ComputerWorld readers has Verizon's FiOS service topping the satisfaction rankings in virtually every measured category. Overall, 96 percent of FiOS customers rated the service "excellent" or "good." And though cable modem services scored better than Digital Subscriber Line overall, Comcast fared poorly as a provider. All that noted, and for all the grumbling one tends to see on blogs and discussion boards, about three quarters of the respondents think their services are "excellent" or "good." Upload speed remains the single biggest gripe.

Midband Ethernet, Everything Else is Growing...

It has been a good year for suppliers of midband Ethernet connectivity equipment and access services. Heck, it's arguably been a good year for access services, period. Where providers used to get asked for T1s, they now get asked for DS3s. Where they used to get asked for DS3s, now customers are asking for optical connectivity. It's the same story on the consumer access front: more bandwidth, more often. That's what video will do to a network.