Showing posts sorted by date for query openvault. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query openvault. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Telcos are Generally "Not Good" at Predicting Sources of New Product Revenue

The mobile and telecom industries have rarely been good at predicting the actual "new product" value of each next-generation mobile network. The switch to 2G, the first digital platform, was seen as increasing the efficiency of spectrum use; improving voice reliability; enhancing security and increasing capacity.


The use of Signaling System 7 also allowed sending of control data “out of band” (separately from the voice channel) to manage the network. Aside from security advantages, that also provided faster call set up and tear down. 


SS7 supports a wide range of then-advanced telecommunication services, such as call forwarding, caller ID, call waiting, and short message service (SMS or text messages). It is reasonable to say that telco executives primarily expected operating efficiencies from SS7, as well as the ability to embed voice handling features in the network. 


To be sure, some “new products and capabilities” were anticipated for 3G and 4G, ranging from mobile internet access in 3G to video entertainment and video conferencing (3G and 4G). But many more-exotic use cases failed to develop. In fact, many would attribute the one-time leadership of smartphones by BlackBerry devices and Research in Motion as an example of the role of email value. 


In fact, some might argue that mobile e-mail was a more salient outcome of 3G than “web access,” which remained painfully slow on 3G networks. Likewise, some might argue that “turn by turn” navigation apps were a clearer “new use case” for 4G, early on, than video conferencing or video entertainment. 


Later 4G development of ride sharing apps is an example of a new use case not envisioned by 4G architects. 


The point is that we are not very good at predicting what new use cases, revenue drivers and value users will see in each next-generation network, beyond an order of magnitude increase in bandwidth and a similar improvement in latency performance (which most users will not be able to identify). 


Likewise, virtually nobody predicted that fixed wireless would be the first “at scale” new revenue opportunity 5G enabled. 


Despite the fact that fixed wireless was hardly ever mentioned as among the new features and capabilities 5G would bring, it has, so far, proven to be the best example of a new use case that generates significant new revenue for mobile service providers selling it. Over the past few years fixed wireless has generated virtually all the net new home broadband connections in the U.S. market, for example. 


Some might point to consumer dissatisfaction with cable-provided home broadband as one reason for the growing adoption of fixed wireless, where the value proposition might well turn on lower prices rather than an increase in speeds, in some cases, while being based on higher speeds and lower prices in other cases. 


The former might be the driver in urban areas where fixed wireless provides lower prices; the latter the driver in rural areas, where fixed wireless might actually be faster than DSL but also less costly than cable. 


The point is that the value proposition in urban areas is “good enough” speed and lower price; while in rural areas the value proposition might be “faster speed, lower price.”


J.D. Power surveys actually suggest that fixed wireless consumer satisfaction are comparable to optical fiber and cable home broadband, and actually higher than satisfaction with fiber-to-home services. By definition, that means the value proposition for fixed wireless is based on price and speed, as FTTH always is much faster. 


2023 U.S. Residential Internet Service Provider Satisfaction Study

J.D. Power

Fixed wireless, especially 5G FWA, leads in customer satisfaction scores compared to fiber optic and cable. FWA outperforms fiberoptic by over 20 points on a 1,000-point satisfaction scale.

October 2022 - August 2023

2023 HSI Customer Satisfaction Survey

HighSpeedInternet.com

Fixed wireless customers gave the highest overall satisfaction ratings, particularly in pricing and customer service.

September 8, 2023

CableTV Survey

CableTV

Fixed wireless and fiber providers scored highest in overall satisfaction, with cable providers lagging, especially in price satisfaction.

2023

S&P Global Market Intelligence

S&P Global Market Intelligence

Fixed wireless is particularly popular and satisfying among rural customers, where it often represents the most reliable option.

2023


Price seems important. “T-Mobile’s current FWA (fixed wireless access) plan retails for $50/month, but that falls to $30/month for customers subscribing to its Magenta MAX mobile plan,” analysts at Ookla say. “Verizon prices at a slight premium to T-Mobile, with its FWA service currently retailing for $60/month, but falling to $35/month with select 5G mobile plans.”


Speed might be less important in urban areas, but perhaps more important in rural areas. The median download speed across the United States for all fixed providers combined in the third quarter of  2023 was 207.42 Mbps, Ookla says. The median speeds for Verizon and T-Mobile fixed wireless was 122 Mbps, Ookla notes. 


  

source: Ookla 


And though fixed wireless has traditionally been viewed as an attractive platform in rural areas, 5G home broadband gains are driven by consumers in urban markets. Both T-Mobile and Verizon are getting 80 percent of their gross additions in urban locations, Ookla says. 


Among the key takeaways from 5G home broadband is that the value proposition--as always--is a mix of drivers, including both speed and price. Consumers seem willing to accept less of the former to get more of the latter. 


If the success of 5G home broadband shows anything, it is that the consumer estimation of home broadband value can change when a new value proposition is available (faster speed and lower price).


According to Nerdwallet, the most-popular home broadband service plans in 2023 cost $41.31 per month for 104 Mbps in the downstream direction. According to OpenVault, in the first quarter of 2024 about 33 percent of U.S. home broadband customers purchased service plans operating between 200 Mbps and 400 Mbps. Some 11 percent purchased service plans operating between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps. 


The download speed provided in this top-selling category was 104 Mbps.


Saturday, July 6, 2024

Most Consumers Want "Good Enough" Home Broadband

Though regulators and advocates often focus mostly on availability (coverage) and quality (speed), consumers often prioritize value, preferring a “good enough for my needs” approach where recurring price might be more important than raw performance. 


And that might explain the demand for fixed wireless services in many markets, where FWA offers enough speed at lower prices than services provided by telco digital subscriber line, telco fiber-to-home or cable TV home broadband. 


In the U.S. market, FWA appears to have dented demand for cable services, in particular. 

source: Opensignal 


Though most consumers would likely have a hard time quantifying how much speed their households require, it remains true that beyond a fairly low level of access speed, users gain very little, in terms of performance (quality of experience) when shifting to services offering speeds faster than about 25 Mbps per user in the downstream.  

source: FCC 


To be sure, the percentage of U.S. customers buying gigabit or multi-gigabit services has steadily increased since 2021, while the percentage of customers buying service at speeds below 50 Mbps has dropped.


But it might be worth noting that about 25 percent of the home broadband market continues to buy services at the lower end (200 Mbps or less) of home broadband speeds sold by ISPs. That suggests the market opportunity for FWA is about a quarter of the market, so long as speeds top out around 200 Mbps. 


At the moment, FWA could address more than half the U.S. market if it were upgraded to offer speeds up to 400 Mbps. 


source: OpenVault 


We might well assume that buyers of gigabit-speed services are mostly driven by service “quality” as measured by downstream speed, upstream speed, unlimited data usage and network reliability. That might broadly account for up to 30 percent of the market. 


This segment includes gamers, streamers, professionals with high bandwidth needs and larger families. 


In contrast, perhaps up to 30 percent of customers seem to buy the most affordable option, including students, budget-conscious families, or those with limited online activity. By definition this segment is most price conscious, even if that means lower speeds. 


The broad middle of the market might represent up to 40 percent of customers who balance price and features. This segment prefers “good enough” speeds, sufficient data allowances, and reliable service, at a reasonable cost, somewhere between the most-expensive and most-affordable tiers of service. 


Service Tier

Percentage

Key Driver

Higher-Cost (High Speeds, Unlimited Data)

30 percent

Value-Driven

Median Cost (Balanced Speeds & Data)

40 percent

Balanced Value

Lower-Cost (Lower Speeds, Data Caps)

30 percent

Price-Driven


In many cases, FWA could appeal to both “balanced value” and “price-driven” segments of the market, in particular for single-person households or dual-person households with lower usage. 


Wednesday, June 26, 2024

U.S. Consumers Often Choose "Good Enough" Home Broadband

Though regulators and advocates often focus mostly on availability (coverage) and quality (speed), consumers often prioritize value, preferring a “good enough for my needs” approach where recurring price might be more important than raw performance. 


And that might explain the demand for fixed wireless services in many markets, where FWA offers enough speed at lower prices than services provided by telco digital subscriber line, telco fiber-to-home or cable TV home broadband. 


In the U.S. market, FWA appears to have dented demand for cable services, in particular. 

source: Opensignal 


Though most consumers would likely have a hard time quantifying how much speed their households require, it remains true that beyond a fairly low level of access speed, users gain very little, in terms of performance (quality of experience) when shifting to services offering speeds faster than about 25 Mbps per user in the downstream.  

source: FCC 


To be sure, the percentage of U.S. customers buying gigabit or multi-gigabit services has steadily increased since 2021, while the percentage of customers buying service at speeds below 50 Mbps has dropped.


But it might be worth noting that about 25 percent of the home broadband market continues to buy services at the lower end (200 Mbps or less) of home broadband speeds sold by ISPs. That suggests the market opportunity for FWA is about a quarter of the market, so long as speeds top out around 200 Mbps. 


At the moment, FWA could address more than half the U.S. market if it were upgraded to offer speeds up to 400 Mbps. 


source: OpenVault 


We might well assume that buyers of gigabit-speed services are mostly driven by service “quality” as measured by downstream speed, upstream speed, unlimited data usage and network reliability. That might broadly account for up to 30 percent of the market. 


This segment includes gamers, streamers, professionals with high bandwidth needs and larger families. 


In contrast, perhaps up to 30 percent of customers seem to buy the most affordable option, including students, budget-conscious families, or those with limited online activity. By definition this segment is most price conscious, even if that means lower speeds. 


The broad middle of the market might represent up to 40 percent of customers who balance price and features. This segment prefers “good enough” speeds, sufficient data allowances, and reliable service, at a reasonable cost, somewhere between the most-expensive and most-affordable tiers of service. 


Service Tier

Percentage

Key Driver

Higher-Cost (High Speeds, Unlimited Data)

30 percent

Value-Driven

Median Cost (Balanced Speeds & Data)

40 percent

Balanced Value

Lower-Cost (Lower Speeds, Data Caps)

30 percent

Price-Driven


In many cases, FWA could appeal to both “balanced value” and “price-driven” segments of the market, in particular for single-person households or dual-person households with lower usage. 


Thursday, February 8, 2024

Is Fixed Wireless an "Inferior" Product or Not?

Cable TV suppliers of internet access continue to argue that fixed wireless is an “inferior” product whose market impact is temporary, while the hybrid fiber coax product offers performance advantages. 


Others might simply argue that fixed wireless is an attractive "value" oriented product that perhaps 20 percent of the present market is willing to buy--and does buy--services operating at 200 Mbps or less. In other words, there is significant demand for “inferior” products in the home broadband market. 


Over time, speeds will have to increase, in every category, including the “value” segment. But there is little reason to believe a significant portion of the market will stop preferring “value” connections, especially as speeds and prices continue to rise for all the other tiers of service. 


Source

Year

Percentage of Customers with Speeds of 200 Mbps or Lower

Openvault

2023

Up to 25%

FCC - Measuring Fixed Broadband - Twelfth Report

2023

15%

NTIA - 2020 Broadband Deployment Report

2020

43%

Leichtman Research Group - Q3 2023 Report

2023

32%

Pew Research Center - Broadband Adoption Report 2023

2023

28%


Fixed wireless access is “an inferior product with limited capacity and geographic coverage which is fluid, is often marketed by the phone companies at a perceived lower-priced to their existing customers, “ said Chris Winfrey, Charter Communications CEO. “ We continue to believe the impact from fixed wireless is temporary.”


Charter argues its hybrid fiber coax product is “faster and more reliable,” and can offer lower pricing when home broadband is purchased in a bundle with mobile or video services. 


Charter also believes the mobile operators will run out of sufficient capacity, eventually, and will have to limit the amount of capacity available to support fixed wireless. 


Of course, there also is competition on the high end. But Charter seems unconcerned about that. 


Overbuilders--generally using fiber-to-home platforms--”will not be able to take significant market share,” Charter also claims. “Overbuild impact tends to be limited to a few percentage points of Internet penetration during the first year of a new overbuild vintage coming online,” Winfrey argues. 


Others will question that assertion, particularly as the major telcos ramp up their fiber-to-home investments. Generally speaking, major telcos are able to get about 20 percent adoption initially, ramping up to about 40 percent share over several years.


Friday, January 5, 2024

Unicast Video Accounts for Most of the Internet Bandwidth Increases We See

Constant and significant increases in bandwidth consumption are among the fateful implications of switching from linear TV broadcasting to multicast video streaming. Consider that video now constitutes 52 percent to 88 percent of all internet traffic. 


Not all that increase is the direct result of video streaming services. Video now is an important part of social media interactions and advertising on web sites supporting consumer applications, though some studies suggest social media sites overall represent only seven percent to about 15 percent of video traffic consumed by end users. 


Also, there is some amount of internet video traffic between data centers, not intended directly for end users, possibly representing five percent of global internet traffic. 


Study

Date

Video Traffic Share (%)

Cisco Annual Internet Report (2023)

Dec 2022

88%

Sandvine Global Internet Phenomena Report (Q3 2023)

Sep 2023

83%

Limelight Networks State of the Real-Time Web Report (Q3 2023)

Oct 2023

76%

Ericsson Mobility Report (Nov 2023)

Nov 2023

72%

ITU Global Video Traffic Forecasts

Feb 2023

70% (2022)

Ookla Global Video Report (Q2 2023)

Aug 2023

65%

Akamai State of the Internet / Security Report (Q3 2023)

Oct 2023

60%

Statista: Global Internet Traffic Distribution by Content Type (2023)

Oct 2023

58%

GlobalWebIndex Social Video Trends Report (Q3 2023)

Sep 2023

55%

Juniper Networks Visual Networking Index (2023)

Feb 2023

52% (2022)


Ignoring for the moment the impact of video resolution on bandwidth consumption (higher resolution requires more bandwidth), the key change is that broadcasting essentially uses a “one-to-many” architecture, while streaming uses a unicast architecture. 


The best example is that a scheduled broadcast TV show, for example, can essentially send one copy of the content to every viewer (multicast or broadcast delivery). The same number of views, using internet delivery, essentially requires sending the same copy to each viewer separately (unicast delivery). 


In other words, 10 homes watching one multicast or broadcast program, on one channel, at one time consumes X amount of network bandwidth. If 10 homes watch a program of the same file size as the broadcast content, whether simultaneously or not, then bandwidth consumption is 10X. 


There are some nuances for real-world data consumption, such as the fact that consumption of linear video is declining or the fact that broadcasting uses a constant amount of bandwidth, no matter how many viewers in an area might be watching or not watching. 


Study

Comparison

Bandwidth Ratio (Streaming/Broadcasting)

"A Comparative Analysis of Video Streaming and Broadcasting for Live Sports Events" (2023)

Live sports streaming vs. multicast

10x - 15x

"Bandwidth Efficiency of IPTV vs. Traditional Broadcasting" (2022)

IPTV unicasting vs. terrestrial broadcasting

2x - 4x

"The Impact of Unicast Video Delivery on Network Traffic" (2021)

Unicasting video vs. multicast video

1.5x - 3x

"Comparing the Bandwidth Consumption of Live Streaming and P2P Delivery" (2020)

Live streaming vs. P2P for live events

3x - 6x

"The Bandwidth Efficiency of Video Streaming Protocols" (2019)

HTTP streaming vs. RTMP streaming

1.2x - 2x

"A Study of User-Generated Video Delivery on Social Media Platforms" (2018)

User-generated video streaming vs. traditional video streaming

2x - 4x

"The Bandwidth Implications of 4K and 8K Video Streaming" (2017)

Higher resolution streaming vs. standard definition

4x - 8x

"The Impact of Mobile Video Streaming on Network Congestion" (2016)

Mobile video streaming vs. fixed-line streaming

1.5x - 3x

"The Future of Video Delivery: A Cost Comparison of Streaming and Broadcasting" (2015)

Streaming vs. broadcasting for future content delivery

2x - 4x

"The Bandwidth Efficiency of Video-on-Demand Services" (2014)

Video-on-demand streaming vs. linear broadcasting

1.5x - 2.5x


There are other nuances as well. Since a broadcast video stream often is viewed on a television set, it is possible that multiple viewers “share” viewing of the same content. If one TV is receiving a program, and five people are watching, the “single delivery” supports five views. 


On a “per viewer” basis, X amount of delivery bandwidth is X/5 for each viewer of the same program. 


If five people watch a program of equivalent file size at the same time, data consumption is 5X. 


Study

Year

Methodology

Streaming Bandwidth (Mbps)

Linear Broadcasting Bandwidth (Mbps)

Nielsen

2022

Network traffic analysis

3.1-4.7 (average)

0.1-0.2 (average)

OpenVault

2023

ISP data analysis

1.8-2.5 (average)

0.05-0.15 (average)

Pew Research Center

2021

Survey and network analysis

2.3-3.8 (average)

0.1-0.2 (average)

University of Zurich

2019

Network monitoring and simulation

2.0-3.5 (average)

0.08-0.18 (average)

Akamai

2020

Global traffic analysis

1.6-2.8 (average)

0.04-0.12 (average)

Sandvine

2022

Network traffic analysis report

3.5-5.0 (peak)

0.15-0.25 (peak)

Netflix

2021

Open Connect content delivery platform report

0.5-1.5 (average)

N/A

BBC Research & Development

2018

HbbTV hybrid broadcasting analysis

1.0-2.0 (combined)

0.03-0.08 (combined)

Bitmovin

2023

Video encoding and delivery technology report

0.8-1.8 (efficient encoding)

N/A

Ericsson

2022

Mobile network video traffic report

0.5-2.0 (mobile average)

N/A


The point is that the shift from broadcasting (multicasting) to unicast entertainment video was destined to dramatically increase internet data consumption.


It Will be Hard to Measure AI Impact on Knowledge Worker "Productivity"

There are over 100 million knowledge workers in the United States, and more than 1.25 billion knowledge workers globally, according to one A...