Mobile Needs to Focus on Pipe; Won't Be Much of a Factor in Apps

You would be very hard pressed to find a single mobile executive who actually will say in public that providing "dumb pipe" services is the key to their future prospects. Up to a point, this is correct. Most service providers already are preparing, testing or deploying new services that add new "services" to "access" products.

But there might be clear limits to how much service providers can escape, or should want to escape, their fundamental position in the ecosystem. "Access" is the unique contribution service providers make in the Internet ecosystem and value chain. That does not mean service providers cannot, or should not, attempt to occupy other roles within the ecosystem as well.

But one can question how much success can be found in some of the adjacencies. Most end users won’t need much help from service providers to to discovering and use their preferred Web content on mobile phones and portable computers, says Declan Lonergan, Yankee Group analyst. In other words, there might be limited opportunity in the web apps area.

At the same time, though, dependency on mobile Web access increases as hosted, in-the-cloud services replace on-the-device apps. Perhaps there is more opportunity in focusing on "connectivity" than many believe, including both packaging innovations, quality of service features and integration with wired networks.

Customers’ mobile content and Web experiences will be delivered almost exclusively by others in the ecosystem, regardless of whether consumers are using apps or browsers as their primary means of access.

The issue with some ideas and concepts is that unstated assumptions are associated with the ideas. Service provider executives hear the phrase "peering" and they understand it as "settlement-free" interconnection. That has financial implications entirely distinct from the issue of manner of connection. Service provider executives hear the phrase "dumb pipe" and think "commodity-like, low-margin service."

But "dumb pipe" does not necessarily mean "low margin, lower price, undifferentiated" pipe. "Dumb pipe" might just mean "access."

The point is that service providers now are suppliers of a number of values, including simple access to the Internet and web, as well as other services that are managed. Entertainment video, voice, mobile voice and texting are the primary examples.

Telcos, cable companies and satellite companies cannot escape their place in the ecosystem, which is network access. In addition to access, they provider other services, applications and value as well, but all are built, fundamentally, on access.

As always is the case, participants in any value chain will fight for a bigger share of total profits from the ecosystem. It is no surprise others want "access" to be as affordable as possible, as that is better for the other participants. But "access" is the one, unique, irreplaceable value that service providers supply. Everything else they might do hinges on access.

Yankee Group Research Report

Small Cable Operators Think Dumb Pipe Might be a Better Business Model

Not every cable operator thinks over-the-top video is a worse business model than providing cable TV. In fact, some believe providing what might be wholesale services to third parties might actually provide better profit margins than cable TV now does.

"Our video margins are going down year after year," said Colleen Abdullah, the CEO of WideOpenWest Holdings.

Wave Broadband COO Steve Friedman also agreed that the profits from an over-the-top model might be better than the current cable TV business, especially if the new model simply substituted a bandwidth usage model for the current monthly subscription model.

While the dumb pipe model may in fact be better for small operators, that probably is not the case for larger providers.

Probably the worst of all possible outcomes is over-the-top competition from firms such as Comcast, where Comcast sells the video content directly to broadband users, and the local cable modem provider is not able to charge for the additional bandwidth consumed. That is one reason why the dumb pipe model would not work unless some form of consumption-based charging were adopted.

"Over-the-top video will eventually emerge as a challenge to the current model of large, expensive bundles of programming," said Blair Levin, the executive director of the FCC's Omnibus Broadband Initiative. Levin thinks such a move is "inevitable."

The basic tradeoff is that cable operators would essentially trade current linear video subscription revenue for higher broadband access revenues. That essentially was the business decision Qwest Communications made years ago, when it concluded it was better off outsourcing linear entertainment to DirecTV, and building its optical access infrastructure in a way that ultimately is conducive for over-the-top or on-demand video.

"The final inevitability is mobile broadband," said Levin. "We know it's coming. We know it's going to be very, very big."

"In 1994, you could envision as inevitable the Internet replacing existing platforms for communications and entertainment," Levin said. "And based on numerous metrics, that transformation is well underway."

Levin also warned that consumer anger over the cost of cable TV now reminds him of similar sentiment leading up to the 1992 cable act, and that there will likely be "some kind of response, either from the market or from the government," to address those concerns.

Any such move would further limit the upside from linear video and likely propel more movement towards an over-the-top approach.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=190749&site=lr_cable&f_src=lightreading_gnews

Telco Choice is Not "Dumb Pipe" or "Service Enabler" or "Service Provider"

There's no question that the fundamental business underpinning of the entire global telecommunications business is undergoing a fundamental change from "voice driven" to "broadband driven," and, to a certain extent, from "services" to "access."

That leads to a fear that the future is one of "dumb pipe" access services providing modest revenue and slimmer profit margins than any existing provider can tolerate, without significant downsizing of operational cost.

Many observers suggest service providers will gradually take on more "application enabler" roles, supporting third-party business partners.

At the same time, there is debate about the degree to which any existing video or voice service provider will be able to continue doing so in the future.

But those three choices are not mutually exclusive. For better or worse, "dumb pipe" access is a permanent foundation for every telco, mobile, cable, satellite or fixed wireless provider. That is precisely what "broadband access" is; a simple "access" service.

That does not mean "only" access will be provided. There likely will be some permanent role for managed video, voice, storage, backup and other services. At some combination of value and price, users simply will prefer to buy such "services" rather than use comparable applications.

At the same time, it is likely service providers will find ways to grow the percentage of their revenue earned by supplying services to business partners. That might include billing services, location and device information, hosted processing or storage services.

"Dumb pipe" access is not the only business of the future, but it is foundational, and permanent. In addition to that, though, today's service providers necessarily will have to grow the proportion of revenue they make from "enabling" services, as they manage a likely decline of "services" such as basic voice communications or multi-channel video.

And it is not necessarily that those services decline because of a shift in user demand. The simple existence of capable competitors means market shifts will occur, irrespective of any conceivable shifts of demand. In other words, one does not have to make a definitive bet on "over the top" voice or video to plan on lower revenue from existing voice or video sources. One simply must assume that capable competitors will take some amount of market share.

In other words, at the level of discrete enterprises, cable executives have to anticipate declining video customer base and revenue contribution, while telcos have to assume declining gross voice revenue. No shift of demand to online video or VoIP need be assumed.

To be sure, those forces likely will be factors. But it is not the case that a stark choice must be made between the "dumb pipe" access provider and the "service enablement" or "service provider" roles. All three will remain parts of the overall revenue stream.