New Verizon FiOS Offers Will Cannibalize Data T1s

Verizon now is selling symmetrical FiOS connections aimed at small and mid-sized businesses at speeds of up to 20 Mbps as well as 50 Mbps downstream with a 20 Mbps upstream. The new offerings will put pressure on data T1 sales, but not necessarily integrated T1s used to support both data and voice, in all likelihood.

In some states (Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island) small- and medium-sized business customers can subscribe to 20M/20M service with a dynamic IP address for $99.99 per month; or with a static IP address, the 20M/20M service is $139.99 per month -- both with a two-year term agreement.

The fastest speed available in these states is now 50M/20M for $199.99 per month with a dynamic IP address, or $239.99 per month with a static IP address -- both with a two-year term agreement.

In other states (California, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and
Washington) small- and medium-sized business customers can subscribe to 15M/15M service with a dynamic IP address for $99.99 per month, or with a
static IP address, the 15M/15M service is $139.99 per month both with a two-year term agreement.

The fastest speed available -- 35M/5M with a dynamic IP address -- has been increased to 30M/15M for $199.99 per month, or $239.99 per month with a static IP address both with a two-year term agreement.

The plans are also available with 12-month agreements at higher prices.

Along with the introduction of FiOS Internet service at symmetrical speeds of 20 Mbps or 15 Mbps, the company has also increased the speed on its fastest business Internet plans and lowered prices by as much as 35 percent.

Verizon FiOS Internet Service for Business allows business owners to choose either a dynamic Internet protocol (IP) address or a static IP address.

FiOS Internet service for small businesses is available as part of a bundle including local and long-distance calling services from Verizon, or as
a stand-alone Internet access service.

Why Video Isn't Like Voice and Data

The entertainment business--music, concerts, TV, movies, downloads, streaming, mobile, magazines, audio broadcasting, CDs, DVDs and other display devices--is fundamentally different from the voice, text and visual communications business in one really important way.

Entertainment is all about the "content" or "stuff" anybody wants to watch, listen to or interact with. For communications, you and I supply our own content, so all we need are compliant networks and devices. Other humans or in some cases machines are the "content."

Everything else about the value chain--discovery, delivery, navigation, display, audio, format, business model, pricing and packaging--is subsidiary to the availability of content one wants to view, hear or interact with. Unlike the communications business, then, it is not possible to "disrupt" or "disintermediate" any parts of the value chain without the willing cooperation of the entities that own the content people want to access.

That's really different from communications, where people can build whole networks to disintermediate or disrupt the dominant providers. You might need permission for rights of way, or a license, or an operating permit. But you don't need the permission of the dominant provider to do so.

And that is what makes video a harder business to "disrupt," even if all one wished to do is create a new distribution channel. Content owners are well aware of how they make most of their money and even how they make that last incremental five percent of their money.

So they are not going to give you access to the best content before they have wrung the expected profit out of that content using the current distribution methods. Of course, that doesn't apply to user-generated content, but the point is that most people still watch commercial video most of the time, despite UGC growth.

That makes it tough for any new distribution platform, much less any new contestant using a new platform, to get access to the "really good and highly-viewed stuff" until it is proven that the new distribution method produces more revenue for copyright holders than the older methods.

The other problem is that "when" a provider gets access is as important as "what" a distributor gets access to. This is a sheer matter of exposure. By the time a popular movie or TV show gets to online or on-demand distribution, people have had a chance to watch in movie theaters, in hotels, on airplanes, on DVDs, on premium cable channels or cable or satellite TV. Not to mention illegal viewing along the way, as well.

By definition, people have had lots of chances to see something before it is made available to emerging distribution channels such as online and streaming services. All of that limits the actual market for online or streaming delivery of content.

In principal, downloads can replace DVD rentals and sales, but only once those older formats generate less than, or equivalent amounts of money as online sales do. And that is going to take some time.

So we shouldn't be too surprised that early forays into online or streaming services face a tough, uphill battle.

Any distributor needs access to the popular content, soon enough to capture some volume, on devices with high penetration of users, in a very easy and convenient way, at prices that make sense to people.

Google has stumbled, Joost might not be doing much, Wal-Mart has folded and even Apple has had to reposition and relaunch its Apple TV service from a "buy" to "rent" model.

Video won't be as easy to disrupt as voice or data.

Uh Oh. Verizon Sues Cox Communications

Verizon Communications has sued Cox Communications Inc., claiming infringement of eight patents for providing telephone services on a data network. So far, only Vonage has had to face lawsuits over VoIP intellectual property. What isn't clear is what happens if Verizon wins the lawsuit, either outright or through a negotiated settlement.

After Vonage was found to infringe patents Verizon, Sprint, Nortel and at&t, many of us have wondered whether lots of other service providers might be found to infringe the same patents. Many independent VoIP providers and even some technology suppliers apparently have wondered the same thing, even if they won't say so in public.

Apparently we might find out relatively soon. The wider implications are pretty clear: it is not clear what Cox might be doing that any other cable company affiliated with Cable Television Laboratories is not doing. So the damage conceivably would not be limited to independent providers of VoIP services but possibly every leading cable company operating in the U.S. market.

And since Cox does not create its own technology but buys it from the same suppliers thouse other cable operators are using, one has to wonder whether there might not be exposure even on the supplier side of the business, though it is extremely unlikely Verizon or other telcos would bother their own suppliers.

Granted, any damage would be annoying, not a grave danger to any leading U.S. cable company. It isn't so clear what the damage might be at a smaller cable company, though arguably the potential size of the infringing revenues wouldn't be that great, so the penalties would be commensurate.

Atlanta-based Cox, the third-largest U.S. cable TV company, should be ordered to pay cash compensation for using the inventions, Verizon says in a complaint filed in federal court in Norfolk, Va.

Vonage's troubles, it appears, might not be confined there alone.

Google 700 MHz Auction: "Bid to Lose"?

Perhaps nobody outside Google really knows how serious the search giant will be in the auction for C block spectrum in the 700 MHz range. There remains some thinking that Google's primary objectives--getting more openness in wireless networks--are well on the way to being satisfied.

Using that line of thinking, Google will submit the minimum required bid, but nothing more, essentially "bidding to lose."

But one never knows. Given the current economic climate, and the failure of any takers for a smaller segment of spectrum that carried a requirement for public service services, the final auction price might not be as high as some had forecast just a year ago. If it appears prices might be low enough, even Google might decide it is worthwhile to play a while longer.

The 700 MHz spectrum is attractive for any number of reasons. It is the last chunk of spectrum likely to be made available for mobile use. And it's nice spectrum, with greater range than the 2.5 GHz spectrum used for much of today's mobile service. The signals also have greater ability to penetrate walls and buildings, a big advantage, as anybody who uses a mobile phone inside a building can attest.

Those signal propagation characteristics also might mean lower costs to construct the network. True, it can be argued that Google doesn't need to own that, or any other spectrum, to accomplish its mobile Web and mobile advertising objectives. But you never know. The auction might not require as much capital as many had thought just a short while ago. An opportunistic buy always is possible.

Fuzzy Thinking on Network Neutrality

With the caveat that "network neutrality" means different things to different people, it is striking that some observers think bandwidth caps for excessive use have anything whatsoever to do with network neutrality.

That's a little like arguing bigger or smaller buckets of mobile voice or text usage constitute some sort of "neutrality" issue. It's a business issue, nothing more.

The discussion is sparked by news that Time Warner is testing usage-based pricing for broadband access in a few markets, for new customers. The idea undoubtedly is that the new plans will be price neutral for 95 percent of customers, and affect only "extreme" downloaders or really-heavy peer to peer customers.

Once the test starts, new customers will be offered a choice of four plans that allow them to download set amounts each month--5, 10, 20 or 40 gigabytes. The typical user now consumes something on the order of three gigabytes a month.

Grande in Play

Grande Communications appears to be in play. Its board of directors has authorized management to "explore strategic alternatives to enhance shareholder value." That's a "for sale" sign posted by one of the largest "overbuilders" in the U.S. market.

Grande has retained Waller Capital to assist the board and management in exploring strategic alternatives.

Grande is in the process of building a deep-fiber broadband network to homes and businesses in portions of Austin, Corpus Christi, suburban northwest Dallas, Midland, Odessa, San Antonio, San Marcos and Waco. The San Marcos-based company offers high-speed Internet, local and long-distance telephone and digital cable.

Sprint Shares Whacked on Downgrade

Sprint shares lost about 25 percent of their value Jan. 18 as Fitch Ratings lowered its credit rating. The Fitch downgrades reflect the ongoing concerns over Sprint Nextel's financial and operating results and the lack of visibility as to the company's performance going forward.

Fitch now believes credit metrics will experience greater near-term deterioration with leverage worsening. Sprint's difficulties with stabilizing its core operations and improving the company's competitive position were cited as evidence for the downgrade.

Fitch believes Sprint will experience difficulties in increasing its mix of prime subscribers given the high industry penetration rates, the low postpaid churn rates of its national competitors, the slowing economy and its competitive position. Of course, Sprint has had a churn problem for a couple of years now.

On the other hand, Sprint's continues to hold a good liquidity position and balance sheet. Cash was $2.2 billion at the end of the third quarter of 2007. Free cash flow (FCF) for the last twelve months was $2.2 billion.

The problem is that Fitch expects material free cash flow erosion during 2008.

Still, Fitch sees no issue with ability to service debt obligations. With manageable maturities over the next two years of $1.3 billion coming due in November 2008 and $600 million in May 2009, Sprint Nextel has more than sufficient liquidity through its cash position and bank lines to finance its current maturities and current commercial paper levels.

Considering Sprint Nextel's other strategic initiatives such as and including the share repurchase program and WiMAX deployment, Fitch expects Sprint Nextel to conserve liquidity and conservatively finance those initiatives.

Fitch's negative outlook is an indicator of weaker operating trends and the potential that further erosion could occur to Sprint's operations if the company remains unsuccessful in stabilizing its business.

Mobile Web: Falling Walls

The Internet has proven problematic for communications providers in any number of ways. Aside from mobility, the Internet and private IP services provide the foundation for most growth initiatives. Without it, there would be no demand for broadband access services, music downloads, video downloads and streaming, videoconferencing or Web services.

On the other hand, IP-based services also allow creation of services outside the traditional service provider walled gardens, creating competition for captive provider services. As a rule, IP also lowers the cost, and therefore the retail price, of just about any communications, content or information service.

So it is no surprise that wireless providers have mixed feelings about wider use of mobile instant messaging services that compete, at least in part, with lucrative text messaging services.

By the end of 2013, as many as 24 percent of mobile consumers will be using mobile IM services, say researchers at Forrester Research. That likely will cannibalize some amount of text messaging and shift brand awareness towards the IM providers (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, AOL) rather than mobile carriers.

Sweden to Separate Networks

It looks like Sweden will join the ranks of countries believing that creating a separate wholesale broadband access entity will spur innovation in domestic telecom markets. A law giving Sweden’s telecoms regulator, the PTA, powers to impose a separation of network operations and retail services on TeliaSonera or any other infrastructure-based telco deemed to have significant market power now is under review.

But TeliaSonera has seen the writing on the wall and preempatively launched a wholesale unit on its own. TeliaSonera Skanova Access now offers equal wholesale terms to rivals and its own retail operations.

If approved, the new law will emulate BT’s "functional" separation. Swedish regulators say they will wait to adopt the new rules when the EU has formalized its own rules on functional separation.

There's a key challenge for North American regulators here. The grave potential danger of such structural or functional separation moves is that it will scare off investors who must provide the investment capital to build robust new optical access networks. As the trend continues to grow, not simply in Europe but in the Asia-Pacific region as well, we will accumulate a track record demonstrating whether, in fact, a capital strike is a realistic fear.

If functional separation can be made to work, if it continues to provide an attractive basis for investing capital in networks, pressure might mount on North American regulators to make similar moves. That will be especially true if market abuse were perceived to be occurring under the current "inter-modal" competitive regime that now prevails, under which competition between cable companies and telcos is expected to provide competitive benefits.

Sprint Loses Customers

It's not wonder Sprint is axing 4,000 employees, closing stores and halting distribution agreements with some partners. In the fourth quarter Sprint Nextel reported yet another quarter in which it lost more customers than it gained.

True, Sprint reported a "net gain" of 500,000 subscribers through wholesale channels, growth of 256,000 Boost Unlimited users and net additions of 20,000 subscribers within affiliate channels.

Bu those gains were offset by "net losses" of 683,000 post-paid subscribers and 202,000 traditional pre-paid users. In other words, Sprint lost 885,000 customers in the quarter and gained 776,000.

In other words, Sprint had a net loss of 109,000 customers.

In the churn area, where Sprint has arguably its single greatest challenge, post-paid churn (customers billed monthly) was 2.3 percent, slightly better performance than the previous quarter, and within striking distance of the slightly less than two percent range Verizon and at&t now have.

Unfortunately, Sprint Nextel's rate of involuntary churn, where it has to cut off service to a customer, rose over the prior quarter.

At the end of 2007, Sprint Nextel served a total subscriber base of 53.8 million subscribers including 40.8 million post-paid, 4.1 million traditional pre-paid, 500,000 Boost Unlimited, 7.7 million wholesale and 850,000 subscribers through affiliates.

As this chart from Bear Stearns shows, churn creates a couple problems. First, it directly reduces the number of revenue-generating units a company has. Secondly, it almost always raises the cost of acquiring new customers as well. The former hits revenue, the latter costs.

Orange iPhone Sales Stronger than Expected

Apple's iPhone is selling better than mobile carrier Orange (France Telecom) expected, Didier Lombard, Orange CEO, says. Orange expected sales to slow after the start of the new year, but that hasn't happened, Associated Press reports.

Orange had sold 30,000 iPhones in the five days after it went on sale in France, and planned to sell a total of 100,000 of the handsets by the end of 2007.

It doesn't appear too many customers are anxious to buy the unlocked iPhone, sold without a service contract and therefore for a significantly higher price.

Orange has sold "very, very few" iPhones without a contract, Lombard says.

Carphone Warehouse Now Major DSL Channel

The Carphone Warehouse Group (U.K. market), which might formerly have been thought of as an electronics retailer, now points out how much communications service distribution channels can change.

Carphone Warehouse now has 2.6 million Digital Subscriber Line customers. It is by no means certain that mass market retailers in other markets will do as well, but both Best Buy, Office Depot and Circuit City, for example, are distribution channels in the U.S. market, with differing degrees of active involvement in the integration and broadband access businesses. In the U.S. market, Best Buy has taken the boldest steps by buying Speakeasy, a national provider of DSL connections.

Brazil, Russia, India and China Driving Growth

In 2007, Hewlett Packard earned 67 percent of its total revenue outside the U.S. market. In the fourth quarter along, Asia-Pacific grew by 20 percent, Europe, Middle East and Africa by 19 percent and the Americas region was up by 10 percent. The Brazil, Russia, India and China group grew 37 percent year over year in the fourth quarter. Growth rates of that sort are one reason new submarine cables are being laid between North America and the Far East, and being planned or talked about between Europe and India. Add mobile phones to the growth of PC and associated electronics and it is clear Asia, the Middle East and Africa is where the growth is, at least in terms of mobile and other sorts of communications.

Of course, there are other reasons for laying additional cables across the Pacific. Earthquakes are capable of taking out multiple cables and routes in an instant, so carriers logically want more redundancy on trans-Pacific routes than has been the case up to this point.

Ads: $5 Million a Day Shifts to Online

One way to look at current trends in where advertising is being bought is to note that "ad dollars are leaving the cable, broadcast TV and the newspaper business at a rate of roughly $5 million per day, says Paul Woidke, Comcast Spotlight VP.

Time of Day Pricing

As exemplified by this chart showing how utilities price usage by time to day to discourage use during periods of peak load, one theoretically could price broadband access, voice or virtually any other communications good based on time of day or day of week. Long distance pricing used to do so, in fact.

Of course, what we now know is that users vastly prefer flat rates, often because it is a way to avoid steep "overage" charges, and even when the actual price for usage is much higher than one might think. Based on what one did in a single billing period, for example, average prices for wireless calling might range from two cents a minute to eight cents or more. When one is on vacation, per-minute pricing might be as high as 20 to 25 cents a minute for the actual minutes used.

Most U.S. consumers probably don't worry about "per minute" pricing for domestic calling. They pay a flat rate for a certain number of minutes in a bucket, and that's about as far as one normally thinks about the matter.

Not so long ago, though, wireless calling and wired network calling routinely used time of day pricing. In principle, broadband access could be priced the same way. It is doubtful the potential benefits are worth the effort. Customers clearly prefer buckets and flat rate pricing. Also, there are costs associated with tracking usage so closely, so in most cases it might not be worth the effort.

The other issue is that pricing by the value of an application makes more sense than tracking raw bandwidth usage. The value of a text message or voice bit is quite high on a price-per-bit basis. On the other hand, the value of high-quality video video or audio bits is not determined so much by price-per-bit as by quality of the streams.

One movie might be "worth" the $3 or $4 a user pays for the stream. But the value will be determined by the quality of the delivered images. Two hours of continuous talking might be valued just as highly, even if the perceived price is $2.40 (two cents a minute for 120 minutes).

Time of day pricing also arguably makes less sense for broadband because network load tends to balance out, if one includes business broadband and consumer broadband load. Business load is high from 8 a.m. until perhaps 4 p.m. while consumer usage peaks in the evening. Average load therefore tends to balance on any given network from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. local time, though usage obviously is lighter from midnight to 6 a.m.