What Changes Have Mobile Users Made Because of Recession?

It isn't clear whether users actually followed through with their stated plans and inclinations, but an October 2008 survey by Getjar suggests users were planning significant changes in mobile consumption. So far, we can document the slowdown in replacement phone behavior. Users, at least in Europe, have slowed the pace at which they upgrade their handsets, as 78 percent of respondents to the survey suggested they might.

The suggested parsimony on the usage front remains a bit more difficult to quantify. About 76 percent of mobile phone users who partcipated in the survey suggested they planned to reduce the amount they spend on phone usage as well.

When asked whether they had reduced spending on mobile phones in the last 12 months, more than 50 percent of respondents had not reduced their spending at all, or by as little as 10 percent, during that period.

For those people who had reduced their spending, the economy was the reason given by just over one third of respondents, while 20 percent changed their usage habits to lower expenses, and a further 28 percent had switched to using free applications to avoid charges.

But the planned reductions could have taken any number of forms. Some 35 percent of respondents said SMS accounted for the greatest proportion of their mobile phone bill. So less texting is one possible user response. So is substituting texting for calling when the tariffs favor such choices.

About 18.5 percent said voice services was the biggest cost driver and about 17 percent identified data services as the top usage cost driver. Less calling and less use of data services are other possible responses.

Premium services accounted for the largest part of the monthly mobile spend for 12 percent of the survey participants. For many users, this should have proven the easiest way to reduce spending.

Wireless Net Neutrality Will Spur Mobile VoIP

This forecast of mobile VoIP, like most forecasts, probably needs to be pushed out "to the right," but is one concrete example of what is likely to happen if the Federal Communications Commission does manage to push through rules applying wired network application non-discrimination rules to the wireless realm.

The first thing that will happen is an immediate increase in marketing of mobile VoIP apps.

Carriers, of course, can react in ways to shape adoption. For many users, lower calling prices would dampen interest in VoIP over mobile services.

Carriers also would have incentive to create their own mobile VoIP offerings, and that might offer them a way to boost data plan sales as well.

The most immediate impact of any new wireless non-discrimination rules will be to hasten the day when voice no longer is the key revenue driver for mobile operators. Mobility executives are anything but dumb. They know that day is coming. They just aren't in any hurry to see it.

Who Uses "Push to Talk"? Who Wants To?

About seven percent of U.S. mobile subscribers use the push-to-talk feature, representing about 18 million subscribers, and most of those users are in a few business verticals, says Compass Intelligence.

While 12 percent of respondents to a Compass Intelligence survey currently use PTT, nearly 69 percent indicated no interest in the service, indicating that there is a limited addressable market for this service, Compass Intelligence says.

In a 2007 In-Stat survey, for example, PTT was the only category out of six that declined between 2006 and 2007 about 17.5 percent. Researchers argue that text messaging supplies a similar value for many users.

Nokia Buying Palm?

In the category of rumors we cannot substantiate, but that the Silicon Valley Business Journal is reporting, Nokia is rumored to be considering buying Palm. It's clear why the deal would make sense. Nokia is the global leader in devices sold, but it lags in the key smart phone category, which is the fastest-growing device category as overall mobile handset sales are slowing.

The other angle is that Nokia's entire product line at the moment is based on Symbian. Palm would give Nokia not only a second operating system option, but also an operating system that has gotten favorable reviews for its social networking features and support for use of multiple simultaneous applications.

Another angle is that, though dominating global sales, Nokia is a laggard in the U.S. market. Palm would help in that regard. Palm also would benefit from Nokia's global marketing machine, as well.

Recently there has been some contraction of support for multiple operating systems. Motorola has decided to support Android, while Palm recently decided to drop its support for Microsoft Mobile. Nokia would be going the other way if it buys Palm.

Where's the Payback From Conferencing, Travel?

The traditional argument made by communications industry professionals is that conferencing techniques of various types provide a payback by reducing travel costs. But a new study by Oxford Economics suggests the reverse is true.

"For every dollar invested in business travel, businesses experience an average $12.50 in increased revenue and $3.80 in new profits," analysts say.

One is tempted to argue that the truth lies somewhere in between, given the obvious implications each argument has for each industry's health. Some travel investments boost sales, but some collaboration sessions likely are just as effective using communication tools.

“This study shows that not all spending cuts are smart cuts,” says Adam Sacks, managing director of Oxford Economics. “When companies cut their travel budgets, there are negative consequences that we can now quantify, in terms of lost revenue and profit growth, and in terms of giving competitors a distinct advantage.”

The study found that curbing business travel can have a strong negative impact on corporate profits. The average business in the U.S. would forfeit 15 percent of its profits in the first year of eliminating business travel, and it would take more than three years for profits to recover.

In the first six months of 2009, U.S. business travel is down by 12.5 percent, the study suggests. One suspects that is a conservative figure.

The study itself also reports data from a February 2009 survey of 400 corporate executives suggesting that 51 percent have decreased the amount of business travel in recent months. Those who have made cuts have reduced their budgets by an average 35 percent.

Roughly 40 percent of prospective customers are converted to new customers with an in-person meeting, compared to 16 percent without such a meeting. More than half of business travelers stated that five percent to 20 percent of a company’s new customers were the result of trade show participation.

Executives interviewed cited customer meetings as having the greatest returns, approximately $15-$19.99 per dollar invested, with conference and trade show participation returns ranging from $4-$5.99 per dollar invested.

Respondents suggested that customer meetings represent 34 percent of travel budgets, conferences 10 percent, trade shows 10 percent, incentive travel for sales personnel five percent and "other" purposes 42 percent of budgets.

One suspects any rational organization therefore would substitute conferencing alternatives for internal meetings, which represent 42 percent of travel spending. Indeed, respondents suggested they would be hiking visits to customer offices by 19 percent, and increasing customer meetings by three percent.

In contrast, respondents suggested they would trim travel for internal training by 22 percent, external conferences by 20 percent, internal meetings by 14 percent and external trade shows by 10 percent.

What's the Problem? Us.

Members of Congress have now surpassed corporate CEOs as the least favorably regarded profession in the United States, says Rasmussen Reports.

Just 25 percent of Americans have a favor opinion of members of Congress. Of course, shamefully, journalists are viewed favorably by just 43 percent of poll respondents, as are 42 percent of lawyers. Just 41 percent have favorable opinions of stockbrokers and financial analysts.

Bankers are viewed favorably by just 48 percent.

At the top of the ranking are small business owners, viewed favorably by 94 percent of respondents, and entrepreneurs, viewed favorably by 92 percent of those polled. Pastors and religious leaders are seen favorably by 70 percent of people polled.

Is it unreasonable to argue that those of us in any of those professions have seriously damaged our reputations with the general public by sins of commission as well as omission? Is it unreasonable to argue that ethical shortcomings, greed, corruption and even simple unfairmess are widely perceived to infect many professions?

And isn't it obvious that only dramatic changes in personal and business behavior can restore levels of trust? Isn't it obvious we are not the people we are supposed to be? Maybe it is time we stop pretending that "somebody else," or "the system" is the problem? Isn't it obvious we are the problem?

Most people in these damaged professions actually seem to believe they are behaving ethically, morally and in good faith. Obviously, people do not believe that. Time for change, indeed.

7 Useful Medical Vertical IP Telephony Apps

Some IP telephony suppliers, as well as many larger system integration companies, focus on the health care vertical. How to pitch IP telephony value to medical vertical buyers isn't so obvious to many retailers, though.

But here are seven concrete features medical vertical users might appreciate. Patient screen-pops can be used when a patient calls, providing a dashboard with general demographics, appointments and recent encounter summaries, says Houston Neal, of Software Advice.

IP faxing through the IP-PBX can be useful for primary care physicians sending a patient record to a specialist.

Appointment reminders that automatically call the patient to remind them of an upcoming appointment or the need to schedule an appointment are other examples.

Find me, follow me can be used to prioritize after-hours calls based on the urgency of the situation. Emergencies could be immediately forwarded to 911. Calls from patients that recently had an ambulatory procedure might be forwarded to the physician’s mobile phone. All others might receive voicemail or the answering service.

How to assess "urgency" is an issue, of course, but perhaps some combination of user input or recency of content or types of procedures can be part of the algorithm. A patient that recently had surgery likely is a higher priority than a call from a patient who has not had a history of severe or serious illness, or who hasn't been seen very recently.

Automated collections messages are a touchy but sometimes necessary business function for any medical practice.

Routine authorization of on-going prescriptions might be another application. Patients might call a specific number, then interact with an interactive voice response system to refill a routine prescription.

Patient-specific voice messages also are conceivable, allowing existing patients to access customized scripts related to billing, appointments or other information.

New Net Neutrality Rule Impact: Good and Bad

More use of network-delivered applications (software and applications as a service), more over-the-top VoIP, more mobile VoIP, more over-the-top video services, higher prices and more-stringent usage caps are among the likely new trends if the Federal Communications Commission extends wireline network neutrality rules to wireless companies as well, a move that seems nearly certain as the FCC begins a rulemaking on further network neutrality rules.

If traffic-shaping mechanisms cannot be used to manage congestion by selectively slowing some applications on either wired or wireline networks (the FCC already bars this practice on wired networks), service providers might have few tools to regulate use except by raising prices to discourage bandwidth-intensive use.

That likely would include a mix of new usage caps and higher prices for users who really want to use video and other bandwidth-intensive applications heavily.

What remains unclear is whether any new rules would also restrict the ability to create enhanced tiers of service that a customer wants to buy. For example, a user might want a service that prioritizes his or her own video or voice services over software upgrades or Web surfing. Business users, for example, often can buy services or appliances that allow setting of business priorities.

Sometimes those priorities include setting priority for voice traffic from desktop phones instead of Skype, for example. It isn't clear whether "positive" innovations (additional things users can do) will be prohibited by any new rules, as "negative" regulation ("thous shalt not") is put into place.

In any case, it is likely that providers of over-the-top applications in the voice, conferencing and multimedia communications areas, not to mention other forms of "software as a service," will be better placed to sell their wares.

The issues are quite tricky, though. Though the FCC rules ostensibly are aimed only at ensuring that users have access to all lawful applications, the rules also step over into the realm of business models and permissible marketing innovations.

It is not clear that network neutrality allows creation of enhanced services that work by prioritizing applications of any sort, even when that is what the consumer wants, and the service provider wishes to sell.

Most observers would agree that it is a proper regulatory effort to allow competing applications and services to have a chance to compete fairly with service and applications owned by the IPS itself.

The unknown danger is that laudable efforts to ensure competiton then overstep and retard competition and innovation by prohibiting positive innovation (new things people have the right to do) by prohibiting all forms of application acceleration.

About 1-2% of Text Messages Marketing Messages?

Some 25 percent of U.S. firms involved in interactive marketing also are using one form or another of mobile techniques, says Neil Strother, Forrester Research analyst. In 2009, about half those firms will have increased their mobile marketing spend.

Text messaging likely is a key part of most programs, in part because it reaches nearly every mobile phone. VeriSign, for example, says that in the second quarter of 2009, it delivered a total of 94.8 billion messages across its combined mobile messaging platforms for an overall growth of more than 82 percent from the second quarter of 2008.

VeriSign delivered 178.8 billion messages worldwide in the first half of 2009. To put this volume into perspective, it translates to 26 messages for every person in the world (roughly 6.7 billion).

The daily average number of messages enabled by VeriSign's combined mobile messaging platforms broke the one billion mark with approximately 1.04 billion messages per day, on average. This represents a 12 percent increase from the previous quarter and an 83 percent rise from the second quarter of 2008.

In total, VeriSign delivered 93 billion person-to-person and 1.8 billion application-to-person messages in the second quarter of 2009. As a rough calculation, if one assumes half those messages were "marketing" messages of some sort, while perhaps the other half were "informational" messages not strictly of a marketing nature, then about one percent of all text messages were of the "marketing" sort.

If one assumes all the application-to-person messages are business messages--content delivery, reminders, notices and so forth--then a bit less than two percent of all text messages had some direct business purpose.

Exclusivity Not a Problem, Time Limits Might Be, Sprint CEO Says

Sprint Chief Executive Dan Hesse says it is fair for the U.S. government to ask whether handset exclusivity deals should have time limits. But he insists that exclusive carrier deals with handset vendors are important for promoting innovation in the industry, according to Reuters.

"The legitimate question is how long the exclusivity periods need to be," Hesse says.It's a fair question."

Salvatore Tirabassi, a partner at M/C Venture Partners, agrees. Exclusivity does not harm consumers, he argues. "A lot of innovative handsets wouldn't exist without strong carrier partnerships," he argues.

There is a lot of risk for manufacturers when new handsets are introduced and the result is that preferential relationships with carrier partners are needed, he says.

Also, larger carriers get devices before smaller carriers for logical reasons. "Vendors want volume," he says. "Why do so many vendors work with Costco rather than a smaller retailer?" he rhetorically asks.

"If you want to argue that a small carrier in a rural market hasn't benefitted because of iPhone exclusivity, because they can't get it, you have to peel the onion," Tirabassi says. "There are alternatives."

Also, for practical reasons, a longer ramp is needed to recover marketing dollars, for either carrier or handset providers, he argues. Exclusivity provides time to recover marketing investments.

"Apple, for example, does not want a half committed partner," Tirabassi says.

FCC to Launch Net Neutrality Rulemaking

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to announce next Monday (Sept. 21, 2009) a proceeding on new "network neutrality" rules that will prevent Internet service providers--both mobile and fixed--from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The FCC currently has four net neutrality principles, which call on ISPs to treat all legal Internet applications equally. That so far has been interpreted to mean no blocking or slowing of traffic based on business considerations such as the origin of the traffic, with some exceptions.

ISPs are allowed to filter for spam and viruses, for example. Where matters always have been tricky is where traffic shaping in general is used to maintain reasonable network performance at times of peak congestion.

The biggest impact likely will be on wireless networks, which for a variety of reasons have more constraints than wired networks. Initial reporting by the Wall Street Journal, though, suggests the FCC will take those constraints into account.

As the rulemaking unfolds, there will be fierce debate over how to further refine the "non-discrimination" rules while still allowing ISPs to manage peak loads on their networks. The shape of final rules will determine how much change might occur for buyers of Internet access services.

Prices might rise, new quality-of-service tiers might be introduced, or new packages based on type of dominant applications used might be thinkable where they have not generally been used before.

Verizon and other ISPs with fiber-to-home networks might find they have new marketing opportunities, since the networks with the most bandwidth will best be able to avoid any new rules.

All we can say for sure is that a new rulemaking appears to be certain. What rules emerge will depend on how well service providers can demonstrate legitmate network management tasks. Voice networks, for example, do use "busy hour blocking" algorithms.

It appears the FCC does not want any use of blocking as a technique to manage traffic. If so, other mechanisms that either entice users to self regulate, or force them to, will have to be specified.

Look for fireworks.

Has Verizon Finally Reached a Key Voice Inflection Point?

Verizon Communications might have reached a key inflection point: the time when coping with declining voice lines no longer is among the top sales challenges facing Verizon executives.

In fact, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says he no longer is looking for the inflection point, the New York Times reports. “I don't care about that any more," he says. "I am going to focus on driving FiOS penetration and taking costs out.”

In fact, in a statement that might still have the power to shock some observers, Seidenberg says video, not voice, will be the core product bought over the FiOS fiber to the home network.

Randall Stephenson, AT&T CEO, and Ed Mueller, Qwest Communications CEO, also now are emphasizing that there is a point where landline losses would stop.

That doesn't mean, in Verizon's case, that there will be no more line losses from this point forward. In fact, that actual inflection point is nearing, but has not yet been reached.

The inflection point now is one of business philosophy and focus, the realization that more is to be gained by growing new businesses aggressively, and using the new platform to reduce legacy costs, rather than focusing on wired voice losses.

But neither would it be correct simply to dismiss the notion that there is a time coming when traditional telcos will stop losing voice lines.

To be sure, it is a huge change in mindset for a business which has seen voice line losses for nine straight years, beginning in 2000. But it always has been clear those losses would stabilize and then possibly even reverse as competitors reached some natural limit.

Nobody with any industry experience ever has argued that cable companies, for example, would take more than a fraction, though a sizable fraction of wired voice lines, for example.

And as ultimately most lines in service will be broadband lines, the notion of what a wired access line is, always has been expected to change as well. To the extent that broadband access is the replacement service for wireline voice, while VoIP is an application running over those lines, "voice line loss" will stop in a literal--as well as figurative--sense.

The "line" will be the broadband connection. On top of that will run many revenue-generating services, voice and video among them.

Given the right balance of features and price, consumers will continue to buy wired voice services, new surveys are starting to suggest.

Harris Interactive, for example, recently found that up to 70 percent of consumers would keep using their landline voice services if integrated with their mobiles in some ways. Users very much want the ability to start a mobile conversation using their in-home Wi-Fi networks and keep the connection when leaving the house, and keeping a conversation going--but switching to the Wi-Fi network, when entering the house.

Seidenberg says that with TV, the PC and the Internet converging, the carrier’s future would be in selling video services, such as interactive TV, bundled with wireless voice. And Seidenberg's vision of the future clearly includes content services to "all three screens": television, PC and mobile device.

Like leading cable companies, which "cluster" in major markets, Verizon also has made a strategic decision to concentrate on higher-density urban and suburban markets, spinning off or selling rural systems without the density to support fiber to the home networks.

Aside from allowing Verizon to execute on its new strategy, divesting rural assets also allows the company, which is nearing the end of its fiber upgrade process, to trim its capital spending.

Seidenberg also says his job now is to get Verizon Communications focused on the idea that it is going to be a video-focused company providing content and software on three screens.

Mobile Capex Not Generating Much of a Return?

Policymakers might want to be careful about changing the mobile industry's regulatory framework in ways that jeopardize the revenue any new network investment can generate.

The reason? Recent capital investment by communications service providers has proven not to generate much of a return, say analysts at the Yankee Group.

In fact, many service providers--especially in the United States--are struggling to maintain adequate return on their invested capital

Click image for larger view.

Cable Growth Shifts to SMB Segment

It is a measure of how much has changed in the U.S. cable and telephone industries that

commercial services, especially those delivered to small- and medium-sized enterprises, are an increasingly critical imperative for U.S. cable operators.

In fact, the revenue and margins delivered by these services will be the main growth engine for the U.S. cable industry over the next few years, say researchers at Pike & Fischer.

That itself is change from patterns of the last several years, when broadband access and consumer voice services have driven revenue growth.

On the other hand, though mobility revenues have underpinned revenue growth for tier one telcos, video service revenue is the fastest-growing wired service.

Separately, the most-recent J.D. Power and Associate study of consumer telephone service marks the third consecutive year that traditional cable television providers have achieved the highest rankings among phone service providers in all regions included in the study.

Are U.S. Mobile Service Plans Expensive? Or Affordable?

Are U.S. mobile users paying too much?
Some data might suggest so. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, suggests that U.S. prices are "high," based on a standard set of usage buckets.

But there's a problem. Most U.S. users talk about four times as much as some Europeans do.

The problem is that the OECD study uses definitions of "low," "medium" and "high" use that might describe usage in the Netherlands, but are wildly inapplicable to typical U.S. usage rates, says George Ford, Chief Economist of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies.

Specifically, the OECD analysis calls 44 outbound minutes a month "low," 114 outbound minutes medium and 246 minutes outbound "high" levels of usage.

The average mobile consumer in the United States uses 800 minutes a month, about four times as high as the OECD "high usage" level. Furthermore, the OECD considers 55 text messages a month to be "high use" where the typical U.S. mobile user sends or receives 400 text messages a month.

Since usage plans are directly related to usage, this is an issue that distorts the comparisons, difficult to make under the best of conditions. By definition, the "average" U.S. user is a "high usage" customer. So if U.S. users kept the same behavior patterns, but had to buy plans as the OECD baskets suggest, they would have to pay rates commensurate with very-high usage levels.

In other words, if users in a given country have low usage, and are on low usage plans, then average prices paid will tend to be "lower." In the United States, usage is vastly higher than in Europe.

Normalizing for usage volume, what one finds is that U.S. users pay modest prices for much-higher use. If users in the Netherlands had consumption patterns identical to U.S. mobile users, they would pay very-high prices.

In other words, one cannot simply compare low-usage plans in one country with high-usage plans in another, any more than one can compare low-usage plans in one country with high-usage plans in the same country. The results are not terribly meaningful.