GooglePhone: Big Issues

Speculation about a new Google Phone continues to mount. Add the Boston Globe to the Wall Street Journal as entities that have "uncovered" the prototype. Google executive Rich Miner, a co-founder of mobile software company Android (which was bought by Google two years ago), has not confirmed that he is working on a phone, but he is reported to have shown the alleged prototype to "a handful of Boston entrepreneurs and venture capitalists."

Dan Roth, president of VoiceSignal, and Mike Phillips, founder of speech-recognition firm Vlingo Inc., both are suggested as also working with Google on the device. Google's phone supposedly allows horizontal scrolling and has three-dimensional, animated buttons on the screen as well as a small QWERTY keyboard.

This will be interesting. Most tier one service providers will say Google is the competitor they worry about most, and wireless is the service now keeping the global industry moving forward.

We can safely dismiss the notion that Google will build handsets. We cannot discount Google becoming a service provider, though, as it just might bid for 700 MHz spectrum. In the meantime, it continues to work to seed existing networks with its software, so one cannot discount an "iPhone" deal with at least one wireless carrier.

But that's where matters get sticky. T-Mobile has the most to gain, but the worst network for browsing. Verizon has the network, but probably not the willingness. at&t is busy with iPhone and might not want the distraction. Sprint has the network and a long history of working with partners. The network access platform (CDMA) probably isn't the most important issue, but is a potential negative.

Then there's the issue of how coherent the value proposition is. BlackBerry is mobile email. iPhone is a fashion statement right now. It isn't clear what it will become as adoption broadens, though if it winds up being mobile Internet then Google has to take it on. Mobile search doesn't quite have the ring of something lots of end users will understand. The "Internet in your pocket" probably does, but iPhone is already there.

More important initially is the choice of network partner. "The Internet in your pocket when near a Wi-Fi access point" doesn't cut it, at least for me. That would have as little appeal as a mobile phone that only worked within range of a Wi-Fi access point. A small number of people might put up with the convenience, but it is hard to see lots of people doing so.

T-Mobile has lots of reasons for considering such a partnership. But that's the worst possible network for mobile browsing. As much as people complain about the bandwidth used to support the iPhone, they should have to use the T-Mobile data network before complaining. Negative user experience is about the only way to describe it.

Of course, Google could be angling for applications requiring low bandwidth, such as location-based and contextual information, not mobile search, or transaction capabilities based on such location-based capabilities. That wouldn't take much bandwidth. But that also wouldn't be the "Internet in your pocket."

Assuming the bandwidth issue can be finessed, the task of creating a new category remains. People understand the "email in your pocket" and "music in your pocket" positions. Mobile browsing, mobile payments, mobile advertising and location-aware services do not provide similar positions in the end user mind.

I suppose Google could attack the iPhone segment (similar features, much less price) but even there the message does not immediately seem clear.

Apple also had an advantage: it is well known for user interface innovation industrial design and ease of use. Apple also has a fanatical user base and was able to build off the wild success of the iPod. Google will not have those advantages.

And this is said by someone whose day begins and ends with Google, and for whom search is something that happens throughout the day. But the way I use Google (research) would not translate to the mobile environment. Mobile search would be a different use case and some new behaviors Google would have to stimulate and help create. Of course, BlackBerry and iPhone had to do so as well. I just can't tell you off hand what a Google Phone does for me, the way I can describe the BlackBerry and iPhone.

Separately, Google has filed a patent application covering an electronic on-line payment system it refers to as GPay. Using GPay, a server receives a text message from a payer containing a payment request for a specific amount. The server parses the text message to find out what value the payer account should be debited for, and
credits the payee account.

Of course, one way or the other, Google is going to be a presence in wireless. If Google wants a share of the mobile advertising market, and it clearly does, it needs control over more elements of the value chain.

Also, with wireless increasingly ubiquitous, and fourth generation wireless coming, Google has to get into position to extend beyond the PC experience. So Google seems to be working on an operating system and at least one handset.

It had made wireless enabling technology acquisitions, including Reqwireless (mobile apps: browser, email), Skia (graphics software), Android (OS)and Dodgeball (mobile social networking).

Google is developing mobile versions of existing apps such as its Calendar and AdSense apps. it is developing text message services such as real-time flight information, local search and payments.

Google might bid in the upcoming 700 MHz auction. it also is sealing deals with hardware makers to pre-install Google services on Samsung, Apple iPhone and LG devices and working with China Mobile and at&t--through the iPhone--to optimize the services for handset use.

Google also is supporting the Windows Mobile operating system. Google also is talking about a mobile virtual network in the U.K. market. And of course it has been experimenting with Wi-Fi networks, and is working with Sprint on that firm's WiMAX handsets.

FCC Ends RBOC Long Distance Restriction

The Federal Communications Commission has eliminated the old requirement that dominant local exchange carriers conduct long distance operations separately from their local access operations. The old regulations obviously don't make much sense in an environment where long distance has ceased to be a separate business, for the most part, and where all access providers routinely bundle access and long distance calling.

As a phase-in mesure, a&t, Verizon and Qwest agree to offer special rate plans tailored to consumers who use little long distance, for a period of three years. As most post-paid mobile calling plans all include bundles of calling including "local" and "long distance," the move allows the former regional Bell operating companies to reduce their overhead.

The change does not materially affect the way wireless and wireline calling is offered to the retail market. The issue isn't really long distance at all. Instead, the bigger issue is which servics, and how many servics, to buy as part of a single bundle, in the consumer market.

To encourage such behavior, Verizon recently increased the price of stand-alone FiOS broadband in some markets if isn't part of a voice or television bundle.

What does WiMAX Displace?

To the extent that mobile phone penetration is nearing saturation, while broadband access to businesses and homes also is close to saturaturated, at least as a technology supporting personal computers, one has to ask what customer demand WiMAX will cannibalize. Well, I suppose some people might argue WiMAX creates a new market, but the issue still is to envision what that new market is.

So far, it appears most observers other than Intel Corp. think WiMAX will supplant some other form of access.

Intel clearly sees WiMAX as a technology that changes demand for lap-top PCs. As Internet access has changed requirements for desktop machines, so Intel believes WiMAX will create new demand for mobile machines that are always connected.

But most service providers seem to view WiMAX as a technology that extends or replaces some other existing end user value or network. Sprint sees WiMAX as a technology that changes the mobile phone market by extending beyond third generation platforms, first augmenting and then replacing earlier generations of technology.

T-Mobile might view WiMAX as a technology that potentially displaces Wi-Fi hotspots. Cable and telephone companies see it as a threat to cable modem, fiber-to-home and Digital Subscriber Line services.

I wouldn't be so sure WiMAX ultimately will have most impact as a PC-affecting technology.

It seems to me more likely it will have much more significance as a mobile phone and mobile handheld device platform. There are all sorts of reasons why users aren't going to take advantage of mobile WiMAX from their PCs, including ambient light and furniture. Everybody can reach for and use a mobile in a pocket or purse.

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.

Or Maybe Google Phone Looks Like This...

Who knows? The point is that Google probably has to get involved with handsets at some point, just as Microsoft now has to supply phones, to get other things done. Google wants to stimulate mobile search so it can sell more contextual ads based on location. Microsoft wants to sell more unified communications applications. Each might have to play in the device arena as part of a broader effort to meet a business objective. Voice is just something people expect a mobile to do, even if the supplier objective really is revenues built on mobile search and advertising.

GooglePhone? GPhone?

Since late 2006, there has been speculation that Google is prototyping a Google mobile phone, optimized to run Google apps, enable communications between Gtalk users and operate as a standard mobile phone as well. The speculation then was that a launch could occur in 2008.

The rumors are out again, suggesting a device that could sell in the $100 range, not to compete with the iPhone but rather low-cost PCs and other Web-capable devices. The device supposedly is powered by Linux, includes global positioning satellite capabilities, and of course will be optimzied to run Google Maps and other Google software.

Google is said to be showing the prototype to cell phone manufacturers and network operators as it continues to hone the technical specifications that will allow the phone to offer a better mobile Web browsing experience than current products, even the Wall Street Journal has reported.

Perhaps more surprisingly is the apparently-serious talk that Google might try an ad-support model. Maybe someday. That strikes me as requiring too great a change in end user behavior. People don't mind paying something for calling. A more logical approach is a simple flat fee plan for data network usage, including IP-to-IP calls using the data plan, and some for-fee charge for calls that have to terminate on existing mobile and wired networks.

There is a rumor about T-Mobile being a network partner, but that is curious since T-Mobile's data network would provide a horrible end user experience. Perhaps T-Mobile is thinking about a dual-mode approach with connectivity at T-Mobile Hotspots. Despite that, T-Mobile has the most to gain, as it needs to do something to break out of its fourth-place spot in the U.S. mobile market.

Such a GPhone or Google Phone would aim for the "Internet in your pocket" segment of the market, with a heavy emphasis on how it can be a platform for contextual advertising based on user location, not just past behavior. There's always some risk when a supplier tries to create a new segment in the device category. But Apple has done it with the iPod and now with the iPhone.

The Google Phone would have to pioneer another new segment in the handset category as well. That's always challenging. But mobile search is a big deal for Google, providing huge incentives to prime the market.

This image, by the way, is just one conception of what such a device might look like.

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.

No Bidders Left for Chicago Wi-Fi

Chicago has failed to reach agreement with either at&t or EarthLink, each of which had proposed building a municipal Wi-Fi network for the city. Just a few years ago, backers were arguing a business case could be made for either ad-supported free service or for-fee service at rates of $20 a month. But that was before U.S. telephone companies got serious about broadband pricing and dropped access costs behow $20 for service very comparable to what muni Wi-Fi networks were supposed to offer.

at&t charges $20 a month for speeds of 1.5 megabits a second in Chicago and will provide connections half that fast for $10 to new subscribers. In other cities such as Houston, an 800 kbps connection can be purchased for about $15 a month.

In Lompoc, Calif., the city signed up fewer than 500 users out of a population of more than 40,000.

So it looks like we are nearing the end of the muni Wi-Fi craze. Though some networks, primarily for public safety and municipal operations, might still be viable, it doesn't appear that most municipal Wi-Fi networks will prove commercially viable outside high-density urban cores.

And even there, how hard is it to find a T-Mobile hotspot at a Starbucks?

Ex-EarthLink Employee Site Created

If you are an ex-EarthLink employee, or soon to be one, this new site has been created for you.

http://exlinkers.blogspot.com/

EarthLink Pays Houston Fine; Might Be Off the Hook

EarthLink is paying the city of Houston a $5 million penalty fee for missing its first deadline in building the city's municipal Wi-Fi network. The payment might ultimately let EarthLink off the hook for the entire network build, though technically the payment buys about nine months to begin construction. The contract calls for complete construction time of two years.

Of course, EarthLink already has said it is no longer interested in continuing under the original contract terms, so unless the contract is renegotiated in some way, the network won't be built, at least not by EarthLink. It might not be the last fine EarthLink pays.

The city of Houston is also free to take proposals from other vendors during the nine-month period, and could award the contract to another company, observers say.

Considering that at&t offers Houston residents a $15 Digital Subscriber Line service running at 768 kilobits a second, it's hard to see how much share EarthLink might get for a service that will wholesale to retailers at $12 a month for a 1 Mbps service. The retail price then likely will have to be set at $15 or more.

Vista is a Damn Disaster

From: Alec Saunders
Sent: August-29-07 9:54 AM
To: Steve Ballmer; Jeff Raikes; Steve Sinofsky

Subject: regarding Windows Vista

Steve, Jeff and Steve…

I am writing you both because I know you from my days at Microsoft from 1992 to 2001. And to put what I’m about to say in context, I have been a Windows PC user since Windows version 1.02, and my home is stuffed full of PC’s, networks and servers… all running Windows – XP, Vista, Home Server. I worked on the launches of MS-DOS 6, MS-DOS 6.2, Windows 3.1, WFW, NT 3.1, NT 3.51, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows CE, Windows 98 SE, and Windows ME before leaving the company. I’m a self-professed geek and will willing put up with a lot of pain in order to have the latest technology as well.

Now that you have the context for who I am, I want to tell you that I am seriously losing faith. My experience with Windows Vista has been a rank disaster. At this point, I believe it to be worse than Windows 98, which many consider to be the worst quality Windows product that Microsoft ever released. Specifically:

1. Driver quality is low. The ATI graphics card I have installed in my PC regularly causes a spontaneous reboot. My HP scanner doesn’t have a supported driver anymore.

2. Partner software quality is even worse. For example, over the weekend I installed Sony’s software for the HDR-SR1 (their new high definition camcorder) and lived through a series of spontaneous reboots. On one PC I was able to do a system restore. On another, uninstall worked. However, at this point I am simply unable to retrieve or view video files from that Camera, as they are all recorded in the new AVCHD format.

3. The OS quality is also low. Subsystems sometimes stop working for no reason. The PC I have printers attached to simply decides not to print, periodically. Then the print spooler on all of the other Vista PC’s attached to it simply stops and has to be manually restarted.

4. Microsoft software hasn’t been fully tested on Vista either. I use Foldershare, quite a bit, which works intermittently. My Windows Live OneCare software sometimes works and sometimes not… on some PC’s and not others.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say it’s no surprise to me that one of the top stories on Techmeme this morning is that one in six new laptops are Macbooks, and not Windows. I myself have seriously looked at abandoning my investment in Windows. My Macintosh owner friends encourage me to do so, and don’t seem to have the same kind of trials with PC’s that I do. They appear to be able to just open them, use them, and put them away. Parents I know are opting to buy their children Mac’s, apparently because it relieves them of the need to be IS manager for the home.

The driver, Microsoft software and OS quality issues are Microsoft’s alone. However, the partner quality issue is an evangelism and certification issue. It seems, from where I sit, that the evangelism effort that the Windows 95 launch team undertook was not matched by the Windows Vista launch team.

This issue impacts me daily. I spend at least an hour a day fixing PC problems, whether on my tablet PC in my office, or at home. I can’t continue this way, and if I can’t I would imagine a lot of other customers can’t either.

Regards,

Alec.

EarthLink: Except for Helio, New Course Set

Saying it has made no final decision about its Helio investment, EarthLink officials have made a few things clear. It simply won't proceed with municipal WiFi networks in Alexandria, Va.; San Francisco; Atlanta; Houston, St. Petersburg, Fla. and Arlington County, Va. unless the terms of those franchises are altered.

It will continue to operate or invest in the networks in Corpus Christi, Tex.; Philadelphia and Anaheim, Calif.

What EarthLink is looking for is risk sharing by other stakeholders, possibly including the municipal governments, chipmakers, network infrastructure vendors or other stakeholders who benefit from continued deployment of municipal WiFi networks. In other words, EarthLink simply won't build if it has to put up all the cash.

For those of you who wonder about the business case, EarthLink is voting with its own wallet: there isn't an adequate return when it has to build the network.

So far at least, EarthLink seems to have made no final decisions about its Helio wireless venture, either. The problem is that EarthLink already has invested more than $100 million into the joint venture with SK Telecom, and it will watch that investment go down the drain if it doesn't try to get it into gear.

At any rate, Helio does not seem to be "top of mind" for the EarthLink management team. That belongs to the business-focused networking business of its New Edge Networks division. Getting New Edge to profitability is job one.

Among the current problems: gross margin of just five percent and churn of 2.7 percent a month. Of those two problems the bigger issue is gross margin. Monthly churn of 2.7 percent, while not pleasant, isn't terribly unusual in the small and mid-sized business market. But five percent gross margin is not a business.

EarthLink also is cutting back its customer acquisition efforts, and doesn't necessarily think it will be a bigger company in the future, measured by subscriber count. Instead, it will focus on selling more products to its existing base of customers.

That doesn't preclude acquisition of customer bases that are stable. EarthLink always has been an acquirer of customer bases, so that's in keeping with its legacy. But after a careful analysis of its customer cohorts, it has found what just about every other company with a recurring services revenue model also should find.

And that is that most of a company's churn occurs very early in a customer relationship. A good chunk--perhaps as much as a third or more of total churn--occurs within a few months. Perhaps half of all churn happens in the first year. Get past that point and churn actually is pretty low.

So the municipal WiFi decision essentially is made. For the markets not yet built, get concessions or get out. Run the three networks already operational. With immediate attention focused on New Edge, and different customer management straegies in place for the consumer Internet access business, that just leaves Helio unresolved.

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.

One Movie: You Blow Your Monthly Data Plan

Something's gotta give here: Akamai has rolled out a high definition television delivery service, capable of delivering a two-hour feature-length movie encoded at a bit rate of at least 6-8 Mbps, with a resultant file size of 5 Gbytes to 8 GB. For those of you with some popular wireless broadband accounts, that's pretty much your "acceptable use" level of monthly consumption of data! And that's just your problem.

Assume the same bit of content were delivered to enough households to create one Nielsen ratings point. That's 1,102,000 households. Which means the delivery networks would require 6.6 Terabits per second of sustained bandwidth, assuming zero latency and zero network congestion!

I don't care who you are, your pipes are getting to be too small. Local area network bandwidth at enterprises is growing smartly, but consumer bandwidth won't be far behind, if in fact consumer bandwidth does not soon eclipse enterprise bandwidth in at least the downstream direction.

One HDTV movie. Two hours. Your whole monthly acceptable use consumption. Obviously there's not enough bandwidth.

Another Glitch: Not Vonage's Fault

So here's a prediction: third quarter additons of a wide range of products ranging from cable modem to satellite TV to VoIP service will be lower than expected, or at the very least pushed towards the last month of the quarter, despite the normal lift provided by millions of college students returning to school. The reason? Not the economy, necessarily. Not a slowdown in new household formation. Not fewer college students returning to campuses.

Of all things, the slowdown will come from the perhaps unexpected shut down of a widely-used in-store-activation service supporting sales of Verizon, at&t, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox Communications, Time Warner, DirecTV, Clearwire, Covad, HughesNet and other major service provider retail sales efforts. Oh, and Vonage.

Boston-based GetConnected Inc., a maker of transaction processing platforms for broadband service providers,

abruptly closed its doors in mid-August, leaving Circuit City, Best Buy and Radio Shack without a way to do in-store

activations of Vonage accounts. With predictable results.

That doesn't mean customers can't activate, simply that they can't activate in the store. And in some cases, the hassle factor is high enough that retailers, such as Circuit City, have simply opted to stop selling products requiring in-store activation, such as Vonage. The problem, apparently, is that the in-store-activation process is the only way to get Vonage when sold by Circuit City. There is not after-market activation process to default to.

So Circuit City, for its part, has stopped selling Vonage, either in its retail locations or online.

GetConnected executives blamed an unexpected and "faster than usual" downturn in broadband sales. I'm not sure I buy that explanation. However, if true, it might suggest a broader slowdown in uptake of a wide range of consumer communications and entertainment services, as the company had worked for quite a roster of "Blue Chip" clients.

Those customers included Comcast, at&t, Verizon, DirecTV, Clearwire, Charter Communications, Covad, Cox Communications, HughesNet, Timewarner, Cox Communications . and Time Warner Cable.

Presumably the bankruptcy has had a similar effect on sales of Digita Subscriber Line, cable modem and DirecTV subscriptions in retail stores as well, though customer service and activation teams have more than a month to get the backlog cleared.

Most of the majors seem to also be partnered with Synchronoss Technologies for automated ordering of a variety of services including VoIP, mobility services, cable TV and wireline phone service. The big lift for Synchronoss is that it supplies activation for at&t iPhone sales. That's as much as 68 percent of total company revenue at the moment. With the demise of GetConnected, we'd expect more diversification of Synchronoss revenue streams.