Enterprise iPhone

Enterprise iPhone users now have a specific set of plans and a financial inducement to sign up for a minimum two-year enterprise iPhone plan. The inducement is a $25 a month discount through December 2008 for new accounts. Users can sign up for the typical voice plans, and then pay a new enterprise data fee. At least that appears to be the case. The Web site isn't crystal clear about the matter.

The enterprise data plans include visual voice mail, unlimited data with both email and Web inside the United States, plus a bucket of text messages.

Data plans range from $45 to $65 a month. For users requiring data access outside the United States, at&t also offers data global roaming plans costing $24.99 a month with 20 megabytes of global data access, and a $59.99 a month plan offering 50 Mbytes of data access in 29 countries outside the United States.

It will be interesting to see how user perception of the value of a smart phone changes over time. Up to this point, the Web browser, though seen as useful, as been of the "nice to have" rather than "must have" feature, as this survey data from InfoTech suggests. So far, though, Web browser use and mobile searches by iPhone users have been significantly higher than is the case for a typical smart phone user.

As the developing trend of use of Web-enabled enterprise software continues to grow, the browser obviously will assume new importance.

Thailand, SE Asia iPhone Deal?

It doesn't appear to be a done deal. In fact, it might be premature to say the deal will get done, but Thailand’s Advanced Info Services is collaborating with shareholder Singapore Telecom and Australia’s Optus to win the right to bring Apple’s iPhone to Thailand and the southeast Asia-Pacific region.

AIS Chief Marketing Officer Sanchai Thiewprasertkul says " up to 60,000 iPhones have been smuggled into Thailand so far," according to TeleGeography.

Wireless Substitution: in China

China Telecom, the nation's largest fixed line company, reported a decline of 2.7 million local access lines in 2007, as a result of great competition from wireless carriers. The number of fixed line subscriptions fell by 1.48 million in December, its fifth consecutive monthly loss, to takes China Telecom’s total to 220.3 million.

China Mobile added 68.1 million users in 2007 to take its total to 369.3 million, while Unicom added 18 million subscribers to reach 160.3 million subs.

Fixed line substitution isn't just a problem occurring in North America and Europe, apparently.

iPhone Drives Learning About Contextual Search

If engineers, analysts and marketers at Google are smart, and we would agree they are smart, lots of really important data is being gathered about what it is that mobile Web users do on their mobile browsers. The reason is that the preliminary data suggests that iPhone users are much more heavy browser users than users of other makes and models of mobile devices.

That sort of information is going to be really important as software designers at Google and elsewhere try to unravel the secrets of mobile search. So far, everybody seems to think there are contextual factors to mobile search that make it different from desktop PC search. In other words, people probably are going to be asking different questions and trying to do different things when initiating a mobile Web search. Directions have to be right at the top.

My own usage tends to be "what's the address of the place I am going to" and "where can I find the closest book store." Another favorite: "where can I find good Thai food close to where I am?"

Everything beyond that remains to be discovered.

Free Muni Wi-Fi in Colorado Town: But It's Bad News

Residents of Longmont, Colo. temporary have free access to the municipal Wi-Fi network operated there by Gobility. Access is free because Gobility lost its billing contract and literally can't bill for access. It's bad news because the network is for sale, Gobility apparently finding it cannot raise additional funds to keep the network in operation.

Kite Networks, owned by Texas-based Gobility, provides wireless broadband service in Longmont and to approximately 17,000 customers across 21 markets.That works out to about 809 customers per market. So it is probably no surprise that Gobility is finding the business a really tough proposition.

Longmont’s city council is taking a look at whether the city itself could buy and run the network. But Longmont has Digital Subscriber Line service available from Qwest starting at about $20 a month and Comcast offers cable modem service for about $40 as a stand-alone service. There are no particular signal coverage limitations that prevent use of wireless broadband from the major national suppliers and perhaps a dozen third party ISPs offer DSL service as well. It just isn't clear that a municipal Wi-Fi network is needed or that paying customers exist in sufficient numbers to sustain a business, even if operated by the city.

A vote of Longmont residents would be required before Longmont could consider a bid.

700 MHz Auction: Not the Best, Not the Worst

For many observers anticipating the soon-to-begin auction of valuable 700-MHz wireless spectrum in the U.S. market, there is some combination of great hope and fear that it will all be business as usual and that nothing much will change.

The great hope scenario calls for some new entrant to win the C block and create a national, open, Internet style broadband wireless network. The great fear is that at&t or Verizon will be the big winner, stifling innovation once again.

For mobile industry service providers, you can reverse the hope and fear positions. Incumbents hope at&t or Verizon will win, precisely to prevent the emergence of an open national broadband mobile network. They fear an outsider could snatch the spectrum away and actually do that.

In the end, he outcome will not be so wildly good for innovation, but not stultifying either, even if an at&t or Verizon wins the spectrum. Change is coming simply because the mobile Web is coming, and no contestant can stop that. Innovation will continue to flourish on the Web side of the business, no matter what is done on the walled garden sides of the business.

Consider the mobile music business. We are far from knowing how the use cases and business models play out. But we already can point to some facts. Walled garden services featuring downloads or rental have been seen as the logical evolution, and that certainly is where early efforts have focused.

Over time, users might do other things. They might sideload their music, then share with their friends using Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 3G or 4G. You might say this is a laborious process, and you would be right, if all we have is today's tools. That will change. Somebody will author an elegant program for syncing sideloaded music with other handsets. It might not be iTunes that drives this, since iTunes is quite sharing-unfriendly by design.

But somebody will do so. And then the business might shift as it grows. Online downloads and sideloading will increase. But then sharing will kick in. Then it might turn out that walled garden download services aren't as big a deal as we once thought, but open download services are. Maybe the sharing software is simple enough that users can see each others' playlists and trade songs, one for one.

Maybe there's even some monetization scheme possible where songs are traded or shared. Most people don't seem to mind paying a fair price to get a song they like. Maybe they won't mind paying some amount to share songs with friends or even bystanders.

The point is that walled gardens might be the logical way a service provider approaches building a new business. That doesn't mean other ways are precluded, especially when the mobile Web really gets to be popular.

In a sense, the very existence of the mobile Web ensures that innovation will happen. Some might argue a better way to approach things is structural separation, where transport and access are separated from the retail side of the business. Others will argue that it is more feasible simply to "functionally" or "operationally" separate wholesale transport and access from retail operations.

Even in the absence of those mechanisms, the mobile Web is going to allow innovators to do things "without asking permission" of the retail wireless operators. The Federal Communications Commission's rules on open network attachment for the C block will help ensure that regime, as the operator of the C block network will not be able to block the use of "open" or "third party" devices.

The likely outcome of the C block auction is that either at&t or Verizon wins it. Whichever contestant does not win the C block will pick up A and B block spectrum where it is needed to reinforce existing operations or extend the current service footprint.

Verizon and at&t simply have the business motivation to win the auction. Sprint won't be bidding and T-Mobile arguably can't afford to bid. Still, it won't halt innovation, though we won't see as much change as if an outsider with no vested interest in today's revenue models were to win the auction.

But the mobile networks are going open in some significant ways, even if the basic business model doesn't change as fast. But T-Mobile already offers a "data-only" service plan, with no need to buy voice to get the data. In principle, it should be possible for this to happen on a much-wider scale, and then users can draw their services entirely from the mobile Web, rather than using walled garden services.

The auctions probably won't be as good as some hope, but certainly not as bad as feared. And that might be case no matter which viewpoint one has. Those who want change will see measurable "goodness." Those who have reason to fear the coming changes will have time and resources to adjust and embrace the change.

When all is said and done, the auctions will neither be a disaster nor a revolution. Neither will they honestly be anything other than another important step towards more openness and choice, however. It's coming.

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.