VoIP Will be a Mixed Blessing for Mobile Service Providers

This prediction for use of mobile VoIP by about 2013, made by In-Stat, might suggest the reasons why incumbent voice providers have been somewhat hesitant to fully embrace VoIP.

The pie chart suggests that a majority of VoIP activity on mobile phones will be provided by third party, over-the-top providers, not the "service providers" themselves.

That's roughly the same experience fixed line operators have had: most of the usage is enabled by third-party application providers or competitors, notably cable companies.

Some might find it odd, but VoIP actually has been a mixed blessing for incumbent voice providers. It represents the next generation of voice, but the next generation of voice turns out to be an application "anybody" can provide.

VoIP proponents have hammered away at the theme that VoIP is about new features, not price. The market keeps demonstrating by its spending that price is what VoIP "really is about." Features are nice, especially in the business market, but consumers seem to buy based on their ability to "save money," rather than for the whiz-bang new features.

The fundamental dilemma for an incumbent voice provider is that they essentially must invest more money, to provide new features end users won't pay for, at lower or the same prices. To a certain extent, that's the similar problem service providers face when upgrading to fiber-to-home or fiber-rich access networks. Video services are truly new. But broadband access has been following a "more speed for the same money" trajectory, for the most part. Fiber-rich access networks have made possible new faster tiers, sold for more money, to be sure.

But it would be tough to make the argument that the new sales of faster access, plus revenue from new video services, have earned sufficient return to justify the investments in a classic sense. More often, such investments are strategic, intended to ensure that a provider still has a business, more than investments that immediately produce attractive revenue lift.

VoIP has been a mixed blessing for incumbent telcos, though it has been very satisfying for cable operators and some over-the-top providers.

Business Fiber: Better, Not Good

By some measures, business customers have better fiber access than they used to. By other measures, most businesses still do not. One has to be in a building with enough private line potential to support something on the order of four T1 circuits, says McLeodUSA CEO Royce Holland. And as recent data from service providers such as XO Communications shows, most business customers are not in those buildings.

In fact, despite strenuous efforts by all sorts of companies that make a living providing fiber-based services to business customers, lower T1 prices over the last decade arguably have made the "fiber to building" business case tougher. Lower T1 prices obviously reduce the amount of recurring revenue any provider can hope to make from a single site.

The countervailing trend is higher demand for optical services such as Ethernet. Though the cost of hardware has declined over the last 10 years, the cost of installation and construction has not, and that's most of the cost.

Limited Fiber in 6 Verizon Markets

In disclosing for the first time its own facilities-based access to buildings in the New York market, XO Communications provides evidence of just how tough the high-bandwidth metro access business remains.

Specifically, XO has its own facilities in place at just 0.01 percent of all commercial buildings in six markets Verizon serves, and in which Verizon seeks further deregulation of its wholesale obligations.

XO Communications's data on alternate access facilities is consistent with GeoResults data showing the total on-net building presence, XO says. In aggregate, competitors serve only 1.49 percent of commercial buildings in the six markets.

XO Communications also says that even in the areas where Verizon central offices have the highest density of alternate high-capacity facilities, competitors have slight access to most buildings, reaching a bit more than four percent of commercial buildings only in Virginia Beach, Va.

In Boston, less than 1.5 percent of commercial buildings have alternate facilities-based access, even in the areas with the highest density of alternate providers. In Philadelphia and Providence, R.I., less than one percent of commercial buildings have competitive access facilities.

At least one-third of all wire centers in five of the six MSAs have no competitive provider lit fiber at all. In Pittsburgh, nearly 80 percent of all wire centers have no competitor lit fiber connecting any commercial buildings.