Service Providers Don't Know Much About Customers

About 62 percent of global network service providers (telcos) say they do not today have enough information about how their customers behave, according to a new study commissioned by Apertio.

About 76 percent of respondents say customer profiling is important, closely followed by identity management. (64 percent of respondents say that is important. That sort of knowledge is important since 67 percent of respondents say "personalization of services" is a key revenue opportunity for IP and data services

The situation won't be too surprising to anybody who has been in the service provider industry long enough. The problem arguably is easier to deal with in the IP realm, but even there network service providers might not have access to as much granular data as IP application providers do.

Some observers continue to think that demographic information is helpful, and it is, up to a point. More significant, others think, is actual user behavior expressed in application use, and what users do inside those applications. Since telcos and cable companies don't have much useful information on their customer demographic profiles, ability to capture clickstreams, when legal, is much more useful.

That's another reason why the drive to capture Internet access account is so important. It isn't simply that broadband access is becoming the foundation service for a landline services provider, it is that the ability to personalize a user experience comes from knowledge about clickstreams, not calling patterns or street addresses.

Auction Starts Jan. 24

Bidding begins Jan. 24 for the 700-MHz spectrum that will, among other things, allow creation of a new broadband network with significant open access requirements for devices and applications. The auction also will allow some regional players to acquire new spectrum on a local basis, either to fill in a national footprint or to serve some new local need. The biggest unknown is whether Google will place an initial minimum bid only, and then watch other bidders increase their bids to win the auction, or make some move to try to win the spectrum.

Under FCC rules, the identities of daily bidders will be kept secret although bid amounts will be posted on the agency's Web site on a daily basis. So we'll know soon enough.

Most observers saay the requirement to support any technically compliant device on the C block national network, as well as any lawful applications, has contributed to a recent "embrace" by Verizon and at&t Wireless of open-network policies even on the existing mobile networks.

At least so far, many observers say Verizon Wireless is the most motivated bidder as it needs additional spectrum more than at&t, for example. Some think at&t will look to the regional allotments in other blocks as a way of filling in its footprint.

at&t launches VoIP in Detroit

At&t says it will soon launch VoIP for U-verse customers. The service has been launched in the Detroit market. The service is a replacement for traditional landline service and is priced accordingly.

A $40 monthly fee provides unlimited domestic calling while a $20 a month plan provides 1,000 long distance minutes. The service includes an online call manager portal, unified messaging, click to call from the TV, and simultaneous ring of up to four separate telephone numbers.

So the long march towards VoIP by dominant telcos begins. As just about everybody now recognizes, VoIP will in some cases represent an incremental change in user behavior, in some cases a replacement for traditional calling and in some cases a better way to do traditional calling with a better user experience.

Pretty soon we'll start to get some insight into the ways VoIP helps traditional telcos, in addition to representing a threat to established revenue streams. Without widespread fiber-to-customer networks and a complete shut-off of traditional time division multiplex infrastructure, it will be hard to say for certain.

But Verizon executives think they will save operating expense when they are able to shut off the TDM voice network and shift everything over to IP.

Employees Spend $693.50 Calling and Texting When Abroad

Global U.S. enterprise travelers spend about $693.50 on an 11-day trip, about 12 times more than the average monthly wireless bill, according to a new survey conduced by Harris Interactive and sponsore dby Brightroam.

“The study shows that 15 percent of employees make at least one international trip per year, which translates into costs of more than $950,000 annually per 10,000 employees," says Jeff Wilson, Brightroam general managers. Voice accounts for about 80 percent of the charges while data charges for Web browsing or testing represent 20 percent of total roaming charges.

About 62 percent of calls are made directly for business purposes while the balance of calls are personal, at 38 percent. Cell phones account for half of the devices being used to make those calls while 29 percent are originated from landlines.

The average number of calls is nine to 10 calls a day. About half of business users have smart phones rather than traditional wireless phones, the survey finds.

About four out of five companies surveyed say cell phones or smartphones are the primary communication tool used when employees travel internationally and 57 percent of all calls made on a trip are made on these devices. Users also are more likely to use a cell phone rather than a land line phone whether they are calling locally, to another country or calling back to the United States from abroad, the survey finds. If not using their cell phone, 60 percent will use a calling card and half will use the hotel phone.

Half of calls are placed back to the United States while 40 percent are local calls within the country traveled to.

Wireless Open Access Watch

With a change of presidential administration, and the high possibility that the White House will be occupied by a Democrat, all bets are off where it comes to the composition, leadership and therefore direction of Federal Communications Commission policy. But it is fair to say that a more heavily regulated approach is likely if Democrats win the White House. Incumbent tier one U.S. telcos won't like that. For other reasons, cable industry leaders will be happy as well. Competitive providers might well think their chances improve as well.

So it might be all that significant that Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democratic member of the FCC, seems to want to give incumbent wireless providers a bit of time to make good on their recent pledges to move towards more open networks, allowing any devices or applications compliant with their networks to be used.

That's an obvious counterweight to any thinking by an eventual owner of a new national broadband network that construction and activation of that similarly open network should be built as slowly as legally possible, essentially "warehousing" spectrum as long as possible. The motivation obviously is to extend the life of current revenue models as long as possible.

Pressure to keep those promises about openness on the Verizon and at&t Wireless networks will remain high if Democrats win the White House. In fact, pressure to open up wireless networks more than before is likely unstoppable if Republicans retain the White House as well. The 700-MHz auction rules about openness were pushed through by a Republican FCC chairman and the market seems to be shifting inevitably in the direction of open devices because of the market force exerted by the Apple iPhone and Google, in any case.

Dominant wireless carriers really would prefer not to deal with more openness. But it appears they no longer have a choice. That's going to be good for some new handset providers, application developers and end users, both consumer and business.

Bidden or unbidden, openness is coming.

Who Buys Sprint?

With its stock price now so low, it is inevitable that speculation will grow about the fate of Sprint Nextel as an independent company. There has always been some level of speculation about Comcast's possible interest in Sprint. Most likely there also will be talk of what Google might want to do with those assets. There are lots of plusses and minuses for either company.

Given the growing importance of product bundling, as well as wireless, it might make sense for Comcast to have its own wireless assets, it is argued. Comcast is a part owner of some wireless spectrum through SpectrumCo and also uses the "Pivot" offering developed by Sprint to offer a branded wireless service to cable customers.

Then there is the fourth-generation WiMAX asset Sprint could provide. But there are lots of arguments why Comcast can't, or shouldn't consider buying Sprint. Start with the WiMAX network, which obviously would operate outside Comcast's cable franchise territory. There is one big unstated "no no" among leading cable operators, and that is that one never competes with another cable operator. "I have mine, you have yours" has been the rule since the industry began in the late 1940s. Comcast would not likely want to be first to break the taboo.

Comcast shareholders also seem to be terrified that Comcast might embark on just such an expensive acquistion. The last time Comcast tried, attempting to buy Disney, the stock was pounded. Any Sprint acquisition would likely have the same effect this time, and Comcast's stock price already is beaten way down.

Comcast also says it continually monitors what is happening in the wireless industry, and one could make the observation that as crucial as wireless has been as a revenue growth engine, slowing has to occur as the market reaches complete saturation in just a few years. Nor is it clear that cable customers see wireless as a "natural" part of a bundle. That's arguably not the case for buyers of "phone service," who may well see a wireless-broadband-voice bundle as "natural" and "logical."

Google, on the other hand, might also be seen as a logical consolidator. It clearly wants mass in the wireless market, and control of Sprint's customer base would be helpful. The price tag is really low. The 4G network makes much more sense for Google than it does for Comcast, and the cost of the spectrum is already baked into Sprint's share price.

On the other hand, Google wants to work with all the major wireless carriers, and becoming a competitor doesn't help. Nor will Google want to mess with operation of three networks or Sprint's marketing challenges. Still, to the extent that ownership of a national broadband wireless network might be helpful, and if the eventual owner of the 700 MHz C block spectrum is a company like at&t or Verizon, who might drag their feet putting that spectrum into service, Google and other supporters of a mobile Web approach untethered from legacy considerations about voice might want a chance to move ahead with WiMAX using a new business model.

Perhaps Google could even work out a pre-planned buy of all of Sprint, and then immediately spin off the non-WiMAX assets, to avoid becoming a competitor to at&t and Verizon. Other scenarios obviously will make sense to people if Sprint's share price doesn't climb soon.

Easier BlackBerry Use

It's going to be easier to read and respond to text, attachments and image-formatted documents on Research in Motion BlackBerries sometime later this year. RIM says it will upgrade its software so users can edit documents directly from the device and to view messages in their original formatting. That sort of functionality is obvious on Windows Mobile devices, so RIM has to keep pace. Apple's growing presence and market share also might be an issue, as the "easy to use, the whole Web" philosophy has got to be changing user expectations about what they ought to be able to do, and how, on their smart phones.

In the third quarter of 2007, Apple captured 20 percent of all U.S. smart phone shipments, Gartner Inc. says. RIM got 39 percent.

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.