Google is preparing to launch an online store in which it will sell third-party business software to Google Apps customers, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The Wall Street Journal says that Google's store could arrive as early as March with the works of third-party developers available as enhancements to Google's office productivity software suite. It appears the store would allow Gmail and Google Docs users to purchase add-ons for niche features too specialized for the mainstream Google Apps product.
The Google Solutions Marketplace contains lists and reviews of third-party software for Google Apps and Enterprise Search, but it does not let you buy the applications directly from Google. That might be what is about to change.
Developers would have to share revenue with Google from sales of their software through the store, and it would be reasonable to assume revenue splits similar to those used by mobile application stores run by Google, Apple, and several other companies.
Typically, the developer gets 70 percent of the revenue.
As iTunes was the "secret sauce" that helped propel the iPod to prominence, and as the App Store has been the surprise attraction for the iPhone, perhaps app stores might provide similar value for service and device providers.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Google to Launch App Store for "Google Apps"
Labels:
Google Apps,
software as a service
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
99% of BitTorrent Content Illegal?
A new survey suggests that about 99 percent of available BitTorrent content violates copyright laws, says Sauhard Sahi, a Princeton University student who conducted the analysis.
Some question the methodology, pointing out that the study only looks at content that is available, not content transferred. That might not be such a big distinction, though. Copyright holders are growing more insistent that Internet service providers actively block delivery or sending of such illegal material.
That, in turn, raises lots of issues. BitTorrent can be used in legal ways, so blocking all torrents clearly violates Federal Communications Commission guidelines about use of legal applications on the Internet. That said, the fact that the overwhelming majority of BitTorrent files consist of copyrighted material raises huge potential issues for ISPs that might be asked to act as policemen.
The study does not claim to make judgments about how much copyrighted content actually is downloaded. But it stands to reason that if such an overwhelming percentage of material is copyrighted, that most uploads and downloads will be of infringing content.
The study classified a file as likely non-infringing if it appeared to be in the public domain, freely available through legitimate channels, or user-generated content.
By this definition, all of the 476 movies or TV shows in the sample were found to be likely infringing.
The study also found seven of the 148 files in the games and software category to be likely non-infringing—including two Linux distributions, free plug-in packs for games, as well as free and beta software.
In the pornography category, one of the 145 files claimed to be an amateur video, and we gave it the benefit of the doubt as likely non-infringing.
All of the 98 music torrents were likely infringing. Two of the fifteen files in the books/guides category seemed to be likely non-infringing.
"Overall, we classified ten of the 1021 files, or approximately one percent, as likely non-infringing," Sahi says.
"This result should be interpreted with caution, as we may have missed some non-infringing files, and our sample is of files available, not files actually downloaded," Sahi says. "Still, the result suggests strongly that copyright infringement is widespread among BitTorrent users."
Some question the methodology, pointing out that the study only looks at content that is available, not content transferred. That might not be such a big distinction, though. Copyright holders are growing more insistent that Internet service providers actively block delivery or sending of such illegal material.
That, in turn, raises lots of issues. BitTorrent can be used in legal ways, so blocking all torrents clearly violates Federal Communications Commission guidelines about use of legal applications on the Internet. That said, the fact that the overwhelming majority of BitTorrent files consist of copyrighted material raises huge potential issues for ISPs that might be asked to act as policemen.
The study does not claim to make judgments about how much copyrighted content actually is downloaded. But it stands to reason that if such an overwhelming percentage of material is copyrighted, that most uploads and downloads will be of infringing content.
The study classified a file as likely non-infringing if it appeared to be in the public domain, freely available through legitimate channels, or user-generated content.
By this definition, all of the 476 movies or TV shows in the sample were found to be likely infringing.
The study also found seven of the 148 files in the games and software category to be likely non-infringing—including two Linux distributions, free plug-in packs for games, as well as free and beta software.
In the pornography category, one of the 145 files claimed to be an amateur video, and we gave it the benefit of the doubt as likely non-infringing.
All of the 98 music torrents were likely infringing. Two of the fifteen files in the books/guides category seemed to be likely non-infringing.
"Overall, we classified ten of the 1021 files, or approximately one percent, as likely non-infringing," Sahi says.
"This result should be interpreted with caution, as we may have missed some non-infringing files, and our sample is of files available, not files actually downloaded," Sahi says. "Still, the result suggests strongly that copyright infringement is widespread among BitTorrent users."
Labels:
BitTorrent,
network neutrality,
P2P,
regulation
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Private Line Market Starts Decline
After years of steady growth, the $34 billion private line services market is entering a period of declining revenue, says Insight Research. It could hardly be otherwise. Just as IP-based services are displacing TDM-based voice, so IP-based and Ethernet-based bandwidth services are displacing SONET bandwidth services, frame relay and ATM services.
U..S enterprises and consumers are expected to spend more than $27 billion over the next five years on Ethernet services provided by carriers, Insight Research predicts. With metro-area and wide-area Ethernet services now available from virtually all major data service providers, the market is expected to grow at a compounded rate of over 25 percent, increasing from $2.4 billion in 2009 to reach nearly $7.8 billion by 2014.
The decline in revenue will continue from 2009 to 2012. But Insight Research also believes private line revenues will tick up a bit after 2012, presumably as additional applications drive demand for more bandwidth. Why the growth would not come in the form of alternative IP bandwidth is not precisely clear, though.
Insight believes additional demand for wireless backhaul and video will lead to more buying of SONET products. Some of us would disagree, but we shall see.
"The transition away from frame and ATM will put a break on overall private line industry revenue growth for a couple of years," says Robert Rosenberg, company president . "However, private line demand remains strong for wireless backhaul, local bandwidth for caching IPTV video services, and for facilitating VoIP."
U..S enterprises and consumers are expected to spend more than $27 billion over the next five years on Ethernet services provided by carriers, Insight Research predicts. With metro-area and wide-area Ethernet services now available from virtually all major data service providers, the market is expected to grow at a compounded rate of over 25 percent, increasing from $2.4 billion in 2009 to reach nearly $7.8 billion by 2014.
The decline in revenue will continue from 2009 to 2012. But Insight Research also believes private line revenues will tick up a bit after 2012, presumably as additional applications drive demand for more bandwidth. Why the growth would not come in the form of alternative IP bandwidth is not precisely clear, though.
Insight believes additional demand for wireless backhaul and video will lead to more buying of SONET products. Some of us would disagree, but we shall see.
"The transition away from frame and ATM will put a break on overall private line industry revenue growth for a couple of years," says Robert Rosenberg, company president . "However, private line demand remains strong for wireless backhaul, local bandwidth for caching IPTV video services, and for facilitating VoIP."
Labels:
capacity,
Ethernet,
private line,
sonet
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Google Nexus One for AT&T?
A device that's almost certainly an AT&T-compatible version of the Google Nexus One has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission. The version now sold by Google works on all T-Mobile USA 3G spectrum. but not on all AT&T 3G bands.
Versions running on Verizon's CDMA air interface and also for Vodafone are expected at some point.
Both the Nexus One and the newly-approved phone are being made by HTC. And while the name of the product in question isn't given, its model number is: 99110. The model number for the current version of Google's smartphone is 99100. These are so close its seems very likely they are from the same series.
Versions running on Verizon's CDMA air interface and also for Vodafone are expected at some point.
Both the Nexus One and the newly-approved phone are being made by HTC. And while the name of the product in question isn't given, its model number is: 99110. The model number for the current version of Google's smartphone is 99100. These are so close its seems very likely they are from the same series.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Fundamental Changes to PSTN: What Would You Do?
Legacy regulation doesn't make much sense in a non-legacy new "public switched network" context. Nor do legacy concepts work very well for a communications market that changes faster than regulators can keep pace with, both in terms of technology and the more-important changes of business model.
In a world of loosely-coupled applications, old common carrier rules don't make much as much sense. Nor is it easy to craft durable rules when rapid changes in perceived end user value, which relate directly to revenue streams, are anything but stable.
Consider the public policy goal of ensuring a ubiquitous, broadband networking capability using a competitive framework, to promote the fastest rate of application creation and development, under circumstances where the government has neither the financial resources nor ability to do so.
The typical way one might approach the problem is regulate intramodally, looking at wired access providers as the domain. The other way might be to regulate intermodally, comparing all broadband access providers, irrespective of the network technology.
Then consider how a major broadband provider might look at the same problem. No wired services provider, as a practical matter, is allowed for reasons of antitrust to serve more than about 30 percent of total potential U.S. customers. Mobile providers are allowed, indeed encouraged, to serve 100 percent of potential customers, if possible.
Would a provider rationally want to invest to compete for 30 percent of customers on a landline basis, or 100 percent, using wireless?
Ignoring for the moment the historically different regulatory treatment of wired networks and wireless networks, in the new historical context, is it rational to spend too much effort and investment capital chasing a 30-percent market opportunity, or is it more rational to chase a 100-percent market opportunity?
Granted, network platforms are not "equal." Satellite broadband networks have some limitations, both in terms of potential bandwidth and network architecture, compared to wired networks.
Mobile networks have some advantages and disadvantages compared to fixed networks. Mobility is the upside, spectrum limitations impose some bandwidth issues. But fourth-generation networks can deliver sufficient bandwidth to compete as functional substitutes for many fixed applications.
Verizon has already stated that they're going to launch LTE at somewhere between 5 and 12 Mbps downstream. LTE theoretically is capable of speeds up to 80 Mbps, but that assumes lower subscriber demand and also low distance from towers.
The point is simply that discussions about national broadband frameworks will have to open some cans of worms. It is a legitimate national policy goal to foster ubiquitous, high-quality broadband access.
It may not be equally obvious that the best way to do so is to impose "legacy" style regulations that impede robust mobile capital investment and business strategies. That isn't to discount the value of fixed broadband connections. Indeed, broadband offload to the fixed network could play an invaluable role for mobile providers.
Still, aligning policy, capital investment and business strategy will be somewhat tricky.
In a world of loosely-coupled applications, old common carrier rules don't make much as much sense. Nor is it easy to craft durable rules when rapid changes in perceived end user value, which relate directly to revenue streams, are anything but stable.
Consider the public policy goal of ensuring a ubiquitous, broadband networking capability using a competitive framework, to promote the fastest rate of application creation and development, under circumstances where the government has neither the financial resources nor ability to do so.
The typical way one might approach the problem is regulate intramodally, looking at wired access providers as the domain. The other way might be to regulate intermodally, comparing all broadband access providers, irrespective of the network technology.
Then consider how a major broadband provider might look at the same problem. No wired services provider, as a practical matter, is allowed for reasons of antitrust to serve more than about 30 percent of total potential U.S. customers. Mobile providers are allowed, indeed encouraged, to serve 100 percent of potential customers, if possible.
Would a provider rationally want to invest to compete for 30 percent of customers on a landline basis, or 100 percent, using wireless?
Ignoring for the moment the historically different regulatory treatment of wired networks and wireless networks, in the new historical context, is it rational to spend too much effort and investment capital chasing a 30-percent market opportunity, or is it more rational to chase a 100-percent market opportunity?
Granted, network platforms are not "equal." Satellite broadband networks have some limitations, both in terms of potential bandwidth and network architecture, compared to wired networks.
Mobile networks have some advantages and disadvantages compared to fixed networks. Mobility is the upside, spectrum limitations impose some bandwidth issues. But fourth-generation networks can deliver sufficient bandwidth to compete as functional substitutes for many fixed applications.
Verizon has already stated that they're going to launch LTE at somewhere between 5 and 12 Mbps downstream. LTE theoretically is capable of speeds up to 80 Mbps, but that assumes lower subscriber demand and also low distance from towers.
The point is simply that discussions about national broadband frameworks will have to open some cans of worms. It is a legitimate national policy goal to foster ubiquitous, high-quality broadband access.
It may not be equally obvious that the best way to do so is to impose "legacy" style regulations that impede robust mobile capital investment and business strategies. That isn't to discount the value of fixed broadband connections. Indeed, broadband offload to the fixed network could play an invaluable role for mobile providers.
Still, aligning policy, capital investment and business strategy will be somewhat tricky.
Labels:
broadband,
business model,
regulation
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Apple is Now a Mobile Company
The iPhone now is Apple's biggest business, and it was a "zero" revenue contributor three years ago. Where Apple had fourth-quarter 2009 Mac revenue of $4.5 billiion, it had iPhone revenue of $5.6 billion, up 90 percent year over year. The iPod contributed $3.4 billion in revenue.
Even if one assumes no Mac revenue is attributable to portable devices, iPhone and iPod revenue from fully mobile devices amounts to $9 billion out of a total $13.5 billion in quarterly revenue, or two thirds of total.
Even if one assumes no Mac revenue is attributable to portable devices, iPhone and iPod revenue from fully mobile devices amounts to $9 billion out of a total $13.5 billion in quarterly revenue, or two thirds of total.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Voice as a "Spice"
Consultant Thomas Howe describes the way voice can work in a new context by calling it the equivalent of "spice." In other words, it might often be the case that, within the context of an enterprise application, voice is a feature used to enhance a process, rather than a stand-alone function or application.
In that sense, click-to-call is an example. Most people would agree that is the case. What remains unclear, at least for service providers who will continue to make signficant revenue selling voice as a stand-alone service, is whether "spice" is a business for them, or not. In some cases, it will be; but in other cases it will not.
To the extent that spice can be an interesting revenue stream for service providers is whether they can figure out ways to combine traditional calling functions with enteprise application features that integrate "calling" with information relevant to the call, that is valuable to the enterprise and is worth paying for, from the corporation’s point of view.
Monetizing such "hard to replicate" data by combining it with voice is where telcos have a great opportunity to grow, says Howe. There are many areas where only telcos can deliver voice and have the information that will add value to the call, such as authentication, location, even availability.
The issue is that many other providers in the business ecosystem also have the ability to integrate such functions in new ways. Google and Apple, for example, may well be able to leverage "location" information without needing the assistance or permission of the service provider.
Still, it should be possible to create services that confirm a person is home to receive a delivery, or to assist in scheduling at-home or at-office appointments.
Identity authentication, more than simply location or "phone number" identity, might be useful for transactions as well.
In that sense, click-to-call is an example. Most people would agree that is the case. What remains unclear, at least for service providers who will continue to make signficant revenue selling voice as a stand-alone service, is whether "spice" is a business for them, or not. In some cases, it will be; but in other cases it will not.
To the extent that spice can be an interesting revenue stream for service providers is whether they can figure out ways to combine traditional calling functions with enteprise application features that integrate "calling" with information relevant to the call, that is valuable to the enterprise and is worth paying for, from the corporation’s point of view.
Monetizing such "hard to replicate" data by combining it with voice is where telcos have a great opportunity to grow, says Howe. There are many areas where only telcos can deliver voice and have the information that will add value to the call, such as authentication, location, even availability.
The issue is that many other providers in the business ecosystem also have the ability to integrate such functions in new ways. Google and Apple, for example, may well be able to leverage "location" information without needing the assistance or permission of the service provider.
Still, it should be possible to create services that confirm a person is home to receive a delivery, or to assist in scheduling at-home or at-office appointments.
Identity authentication, more than simply location or "phone number" identity, might be useful for transactions as well.
Labels:
hosted VoIP,
IP telephony,
Voice 2.0
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Few Takers for 50 Mbps Access
Time Warner Cable has about nine million high-speed access customers. It has about 20,000 customers for its fastest DOCSIS 3.0 service, which depending on configuration can support speeds up to about 43 Mbps per 6 MHz channel in the downstream direction, or more, if more bandwidth is made available.
All that means is that few customers are willing to pay $100 a month or more to get really-fast broadband access running at speeds of about 50 Mbps maximum.
All that means is that few customers are willing to pay $100 a month or more to get really-fast broadband access running at speeds of about 50 Mbps maximum.
Labels:
50 Mbps,
broadband,
cable modem,
Time Warner Cable
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
How Important is AT&T's U-Verse?
AT&T books something on the order of $124 billion a year worth of revenue. In the fourth quarter of 2009, AT&T booked U-verse revenues representing an annualized $3 billion. Some will note that this represents about three percent of AT&T's annual revenues.
By way of contrast, wireless already contributes about $56 billion annually. For the quarter, wireless revenues were $12.6 billion and wireless data was about $3.9 billion.
A rational observer might note that U-verse, AT&T's broadband and TV services effort, represents less revenue annually than mobile data does in one quarter. One might also argue that U-verse is not a revenue contributor that really "moves the needle" in terms of overall AT&T revenue performance.
One might also infer that a rational AT&T executive would not spend nearly the time on fiber-to-customer services that he or she would spend on wireless services, given the relatively small contribution U-verse can make to the overall bottom line, even if such broadband services represent the future of the fixed access business.
On the other hand, U-verse services have a much-higher growth profile, growing at about a 32-percent rate in the fourth quarter, where mobile revenues grew at about a nine-percent rate. Wireless data is growing at about a 26-percent rate.
Still, a rational executive might conclude that the gross revenue implications of high wireless data growth rates are vastly more signficant than equally-high growth rates for U-verse broadband services.
Some U-verse growth cannibalizes digital subscriber line revenue. And though video services have room to continue growing, that revenue source is fundamentally bounded by the total size of the U.S. multi-channel video business, where AT&T essentially takes existing revenue and market share away from cable competitors.
The wireline data business essentially can aim to grow to nearly 100 percent of the existing base of AT&T's existing huge installed base of wireless voice customers. AT&T has more than 85 million mobile voice customers.
The entire U.S. cable customer base is about 62.6 million accounts, and AT&T does not have a universal U.S. footprint. AT&T ultimately might cover 30 million U.S. homes out of 115 million total with its U-verse network.
If AT&T often appears to be a wireless company first and foremost, there is a good reason.
By way of contrast, wireless already contributes about $56 billion annually. For the quarter, wireless revenues were $12.6 billion and wireless data was about $3.9 billion.
A rational observer might note that U-verse, AT&T's broadband and TV services effort, represents less revenue annually than mobile data does in one quarter. One might also argue that U-verse is not a revenue contributor that really "moves the needle" in terms of overall AT&T revenue performance.
One might also infer that a rational AT&T executive would not spend nearly the time on fiber-to-customer services that he or she would spend on wireless services, given the relatively small contribution U-verse can make to the overall bottom line, even if such broadband services represent the future of the fixed access business.
On the other hand, U-verse services have a much-higher growth profile, growing at about a 32-percent rate in the fourth quarter, where mobile revenues grew at about a nine-percent rate. Wireless data is growing at about a 26-percent rate.
Still, a rational executive might conclude that the gross revenue implications of high wireless data growth rates are vastly more signficant than equally-high growth rates for U-verse broadband services.
Some U-verse growth cannibalizes digital subscriber line revenue. And though video services have room to continue growing, that revenue source is fundamentally bounded by the total size of the U.S. multi-channel video business, where AT&T essentially takes existing revenue and market share away from cable competitors.
The wireline data business essentially can aim to grow to nearly 100 percent of the existing base of AT&T's existing huge installed base of wireless voice customers. AT&T has more than 85 million mobile voice customers.
The entire U.S. cable customer base is about 62.6 million accounts, and AT&T does not have a universal U.S. footprint. AT&T ultimately might cover 30 million U.S. homes out of 115 million total with its U-verse network.
If AT&T often appears to be a wireless company first and foremost, there is a good reason.
Labels:
att,
business model,
IPTV,
telco strategy,
uverse,
video
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
In 2014, 80% of Broadband Access Will Be Mobile, says Huawei
By 2014, 80 percent of the world's two billion broadband users will be using mobile networks for their access, says Huawei. Of those two billion users, 1.5 billion will be first-time subscribers.
Predictions such as that are one reason regulators and suppliers need to be much more cognizant of how much is changing in the global communications business. Policies that relate to broadband access and deployment must reorient to reflect user behavior and supply that will be overwhelmingly mobility-based in just a few years.
Huawei also points out that voice services revenues also are steadily declining."In the past five years, the revenue for fixed voice services decreased by 15 percent, reflected by a decreasing growth rate for mobile voice services in 2009," Huawei says.
If that is a fundamental trend, as Huawei believes it is, then policies cannot be designed on the assumption that voice revenues, traditionally the underpinning for the whole global business, will continue to do so in the future.
In other words, instead of assuming service providers are powerful gatekeepers who need to be restrained, it might be more apt to view them as endangered suppliers who must replace the bulk of their revenues over the next decade or so, simply to remain in business. That certainly is not how telecom companies have been viewed in the past, but to ignore the changes could be dangerous.
U.S. regulators were so intent on introducing more competition in voice services in the early 1990s that they nearly completely missed the fact that the Internet, broadband and over-the-top applications and services were about to change the industry. Basically, the intended market result was to cause incumbents to lose market share while competitors were to gain share, precisely at the point that nearly every competitor was about to face a declining market for voice services.
It takes little insight to observe that a narrow focus on fixed broadband might likewise be dangerous at a time when usage is shifting so profoundly to mobile modes.
To use an analogy, regulators must resist the temptation to "fight the last war," rather than the different new war that is coming.
Predictions such as that are one reason regulators and suppliers need to be much more cognizant of how much is changing in the global communications business. Policies that relate to broadband access and deployment must reorient to reflect user behavior and supply that will be overwhelmingly mobility-based in just a few years.
Huawei also points out that voice services revenues also are steadily declining."In the past five years, the revenue for fixed voice services decreased by 15 percent, reflected by a decreasing growth rate for mobile voice services in 2009," Huawei says.
If that is a fundamental trend, as Huawei believes it is, then policies cannot be designed on the assumption that voice revenues, traditionally the underpinning for the whole global business, will continue to do so in the future.
In other words, instead of assuming service providers are powerful gatekeepers who need to be restrained, it might be more apt to view them as endangered suppliers who must replace the bulk of their revenues over the next decade or so, simply to remain in business. That certainly is not how telecom companies have been viewed in the past, but to ignore the changes could be dangerous.
U.S. regulators were so intent on introducing more competition in voice services in the early 1990s that they nearly completely missed the fact that the Internet, broadband and over-the-top applications and services were about to change the industry. Basically, the intended market result was to cause incumbents to lose market share while competitors were to gain share, precisely at the point that nearly every competitor was about to face a declining market for voice services.
It takes little insight to observe that a narrow focus on fixed broadband might likewise be dangerous at a time when usage is shifting so profoundly to mobile modes.
To use an analogy, regulators must resist the temptation to "fight the last war," rather than the different new war that is coming.
Labels:
broadband,
business model,
mobile broadband,
regulation
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Is Verizon a "Wireless" Company as AT&T Is?
Is Verizon now a "wireless company with a wireline business"? Some might argue that is the case. Others might argue Verizon is a company with significant wireless and broadband businesses. At AT&T, it is easier to make argument that the company really now is a wireless company with wireline businesses.
Part of the reason for the difference is Verizon's decision to go to a "fiber to the home" access network, while AT&T has chosen a less-costly "fiber-to-neighborhood" approach. But those decisions are conditioned by the different potential customer bases in each telco's territory. AT&T is less dense, so FTTH is aq more expensive choice. Verizon also has more business customers, and fewer consumer customers, relatively speaking.
Analysts at Trefis, for example, estimate that mobility counts for 34 percent of Verizon's equity value, with broadband access contributing 36 percent. Services to larger businesses and organizations account for 17 percent of Verizon's equity value.
The consumer and smaller business revenue stream accounts for just 10 percent of Verizon's equity value.
At AT&T, wireless accounts for a whopping 51 percent of equity value, while Internet and television services account for 16 percent. Services to business customers, plus wholesale, accounts for 12 percent of equity value. The landline voice business accounts for 12 percent of equity value.
AT&T really is a wireless company with a wireline business.
VZW added 2.2 million net wireless subscribers in the last three months of 2009. Verizon remains the marker leader in size, quickly approaching the 100 million-sub mark with 91.2 million total mobile customers.
Total wireless service revenues remained flat quarter-over-quarter at $13.5 billion and were up only five percent year-over-year.
But wireless data revenues continued to balloon, increasing $200 million over the third quarter to $4.3 billion and 26.6 percent year-over-year. Data now accounts for 31.9 percent of all service revenues.
Wireline service revenues fell $100 million quarter over-quarter to $11.5 billion, representing a 3.9 percent drop year-over-year. On the residential side, access line loss showed no signs of improving with Verizon posting a further 12.3 percent decline.
Verizon also is losing digital subscriber line accounts as it switches customers over to the FiOS service. Verizon lost 107,000 broadband lines, primarily DSL accounts, as its FiOS service grew by153,000 net new customers, including both broadband access and video customers.
FiOS now has 2.9 million TV subscribers (25 percent penetration) and 3.4 million Internet customers (28 percent penetration).
But wireline figures also were distorted by the addition of Alltel assets.
Wireless profit margins also are higher than wireline. Wireless had 45 percent margins in the fourth quarter of 2009, while wireline margins fell to 23 percent.
Part of the reason for the difference is Verizon's decision to go to a "fiber to the home" access network, while AT&T has chosen a less-costly "fiber-to-neighborhood" approach. But those decisions are conditioned by the different potential customer bases in each telco's territory. AT&T is less dense, so FTTH is aq more expensive choice. Verizon also has more business customers, and fewer consumer customers, relatively speaking.
Analysts at Trefis, for example, estimate that mobility counts for 34 percent of Verizon's equity value, with broadband access contributing 36 percent. Services to larger businesses and organizations account for 17 percent of Verizon's equity value.
The consumer and smaller business revenue stream accounts for just 10 percent of Verizon's equity value.
At AT&T, wireless accounts for a whopping 51 percent of equity value, while Internet and television services account for 16 percent. Services to business customers, plus wholesale, accounts for 12 percent of equity value. The landline voice business accounts for 12 percent of equity value.
AT&T really is a wireless company with a wireline business.
VZW added 2.2 million net wireless subscribers in the last three months of 2009. Verizon remains the marker leader in size, quickly approaching the 100 million-sub mark with 91.2 million total mobile customers.
Total wireless service revenues remained flat quarter-over-quarter at $13.5 billion and were up only five percent year-over-year.
But wireless data revenues continued to balloon, increasing $200 million over the third quarter to $4.3 billion and 26.6 percent year-over-year. Data now accounts for 31.9 percent of all service revenues.
Wireline service revenues fell $100 million quarter over-quarter to $11.5 billion, representing a 3.9 percent drop year-over-year. On the residential side, access line loss showed no signs of improving with Verizon posting a further 12.3 percent decline.
Verizon also is losing digital subscriber line accounts as it switches customers over to the FiOS service. Verizon lost 107,000 broadband lines, primarily DSL accounts, as its FiOS service grew by153,000 net new customers, including both broadband access and video customers.
FiOS now has 2.9 million TV subscribers (25 percent penetration) and 3.4 million Internet customers (28 percent penetration).
But wireline figures also were distorted by the addition of Alltel assets.
Wireless profit margins also are higher than wireline. Wireless had 45 percent margins in the fourth quarter of 2009, while wireline margins fell to 23 percent.
Labels:
att,
business model,
FiOS,
mobile,
Verizon
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Mobile Broadband Prices: As Usage Climbs, Something's Gotta Give
Sooner or later, mobile broadband consumption patterns are going to force mobile Internet service providers to better match consumption with usage, for the simple reason that the cost of supplying end user bandwidth probably will grow faster than the cost of infrastructure, on a per-megabit-per-second basis, will drop.
That obviously affects the mobile broadband business case, especially if video comes to represent 90 percent of all bandwidth demand, as Cisco now predicts and as global backbone networks already demonstrate.
At the current average traffic levels of 500 MBytes a month, revenue per MByte outstrips delivery costs for HSPA, LTE and WiMAX at monthly retail prices starting at $20 per month, says Monica Paolini, Senza Fili Consulting president.
At $20 per month, mobile operators operate at a loss for subscribers using more than 1 GByte per month in a 3G network, or for subscribers using more than 5 GBytes per month on a 4G network, Paolini says.
At 10 GBytes per month, data subscribers do not generate any net benefit for mobile operators on a 3G network. On a 4G network 10 GBytes of usage might be a break-even proposition.
That obviously affects the mobile broadband business case, especially if video comes to represent 90 percent of all bandwidth demand, as Cisco now predicts and as global backbone networks already demonstrate.
At the current average traffic levels of 500 MBytes a month, revenue per MByte outstrips delivery costs for HSPA, LTE and WiMAX at monthly retail prices starting at $20 per month, says Monica Paolini, Senza Fili Consulting president.
At $20 per month, mobile operators operate at a loss for subscribers using more than 1 GByte per month in a 3G network, or for subscribers using more than 5 GBytes per month on a 4G network, Paolini says.
At 10 GBytes per month, data subscribers do not generate any net benefit for mobile operators on a 3G network. On a 4G network 10 GBytes of usage might be a break-even proposition.
Labels:
business model,
mobile broadband
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Who are the Media Gatekeepers These Days?
Media business models nearly always are a mix of end-user revenues and advertising or promotion. That likely won't be different as mobile media start to develop (click on image for larger view).
And though much attention always is directed at the role of "access providers" as key gatekeepers, that probably is not an issue in the mobile marketing and mobile media business.
Instead, it is device providers and application providers that are emerging as the key gatekeepers. Consider platforms such as the iPhone, with its App Store, or Facebook.
These days, the App Store and Facebook are emerging as distinct business ecosystems for application sales, gaming and advertising.
That is going to prove something of a shock for "service" providers, but that's just what seems to be happening.
And though much attention always is directed at the role of "access providers" as key gatekeepers, that probably is not an issue in the mobile marketing and mobile media business.
Instead, it is device providers and application providers that are emerging as the key gatekeepers. Consider platforms such as the iPhone, with its App Store, or Facebook.
These days, the App Store and Facebook are emerging as distinct business ecosystems for application sales, gaming and advertising.
That is going to prove something of a shock for "service" providers, but that's just what seems to be happening.
Labels:
Apple,
business model,
ecosystem,
Facebook,
iPhone
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Internet Isn't What it Used to Be
Some time ago, the Internet was "controlled" by standards groups.
These days, some think it is controlled by ISPs.
Increasingly, it is controlled and shaped by ecosystems formed about devices or key applications (Click on image to see larger view).
That means our old notions about the "open" or "neutral" Internet have changed.
To some extent, the Internet still is about the ability of any one user to reach other user. To an increasing extent, it is about domains accessible only to members, users and subscribers.
For content owners, advertising and marketing specialists, users and enablers, that means development and business models are based on discrete ecosystems, not the "Internet" in general. And while much attention is paid to the role of ISPs as "gatekeepers," there are all sorts of gatekeepers these days, and application providers or device manufacturers might be more important gatekeepers than ISPs.
These days, some think it is controlled by ISPs.
Increasingly, it is controlled and shaped by ecosystems formed about devices or key applications (Click on image to see larger view).
That means our old notions about the "open" or "neutral" Internet have changed.
To some extent, the Internet still is about the ability of any one user to reach other user. To an increasing extent, it is about domains accessible only to members, users and subscribers.
For content owners, advertising and marketing specialists, users and enablers, that means development and business models are based on discrete ecosystems, not the "Internet" in general. And while much attention is paid to the role of ISPs as "gatekeepers," there are all sorts of gatekeepers these days, and application providers or device manufacturers might be more important gatekeepers than ISPs.
Labels:
broadband,
business model,
Internet,
marketing
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
YouTube "Feather" Beta Seeks Lowest-Latency Connections
YouTube, or any video content for that matter, is tough to watch on a low-bandwidth Internet access connection or even a computer with insufficient processing power, such as some netbooks.
So YouTube is in beta testing of "Feather," a way of optmizing latency performance on limited hardware or low-bandwidth connections. Feather is said to work by “severely limiting the features" and "making use of advanced Web techniques for reducing the total amount of bytes downloaded by the browser."
The video playback page of Youtube Feather is fully transferred after downloading 52 Kilobytes of data compared to 391 Kilobytes that the standard pages require, some note.
Youtube Feather achieves the better performance by partially by removing standard YouTube features such as posting of comments, rating videos, or viewing all comments or customizing the embedded player.
The Feather beta suggests why strict versions of "network neutrality" might hinder innovation or end user experience. Feather works by blocking some bits and features. It is an opt-in feature, and that also is part of the danger over-zealous network neutrality rules represent. Users might want to selectively tune their use of some applications, blocking some features and bits, to optimize the experience.
So YouTube is in beta testing of "Feather," a way of optmizing latency performance on limited hardware or low-bandwidth connections. Feather is said to work by “severely limiting the features" and "making use of advanced Web techniques for reducing the total amount of bytes downloaded by the browser."
The video playback page of Youtube Feather is fully transferred after downloading 52 Kilobytes of data compared to 391 Kilobytes that the standard pages require, some note.
Youtube Feather achieves the better performance by partially by removing standard YouTube features such as posting of comments, rating videos, or viewing all comments or customizing the embedded player.
The Feather beta suggests why strict versions of "network neutrality" might hinder innovation or end user experience. Feather works by blocking some bits and features. It is an opt-in feature, and that also is part of the danger over-zealous network neutrality rules represent. Users might want to selectively tune their use of some applications, blocking some features and bits, to optimize the experience.
Labels:
network neutrality,
YouTube
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Logs and Splinters
"Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye ? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ...
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
One recurring issue with forecasts of multi-access edge computing is that it is easier to make predictions about cost than revenue and infra...



