AT&T apparently will launch the Motorola Backflip, its first Android device, pre-loaded with Yahoo, not Google, as the default search engine. The move is one more example of the growing complexity of value chains in the communications business, where access provider, handset manufacturer and application providers have distinct interests.
In a less-direct sense, the moves also are evidence that the days of the old Internet have changed. These days, there are lots of business deals and arrangements that shape user access to experiences on the Internet and World Wide Web, and which demonstrate that there are numerous "gatekeeper" roles now being played by a variety of participants.
Other Google apps, such as Gmail, Google Maps, Google Talk, Android Market and YouTube, remain.
It’s unclear if T-Mobile will ever have to do the same. It’s been about two years since T-Mobile USA launched its first Google phone, and it has yet to replace Google’s search on Android devces with Yahoo, despite having a similar exclusive partnership with Yahoo.
Last year, Microsoft got exclusive right to manage mobile search and advertising on Verizon’s handsets.
While Bing has been installed on several phones, including BlackBerry devices, Verizon’s Motorola Droid and HTC Droid Eris, come pre-loaded with Google’s search as the default.
Default settings still are seen as valuable because many users do not customize their application profiles on smartphones.
New York Times story
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
AT&T Will Use Yahoo as Default Search Engine on Motorola's Android-Based Backflip
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.
No Daily Show, Colbert for Hulu
Viacom will remove “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and other Comedy Central television shows from Hulu the week of March 8, 2010, apparently unhappy with the incremental ad revenue the Hulu viewings generate, or other terms of the deal.
You might say it is a skirmish in the wider war over content pay walls and other ways content owners want to preserve the value of their copyrights in the online ecosystem.
Consider the move a vote to protect and preserve the value of multi-channel video distribution. that isn't to say content owners are averse to extended online distribution, only to note that, at the moment, the value of multi-channel revenue streams vastly outweighs what Viacom has been able to realize from Hulu distribution.
Comedy Central apparently will continue to stream full episodes of the shows on TheDailyShow.com and ColbertNation.com, where Viacom might believe it can better profit from restricting the content to its own sites.
Hulu executives say revenue for both “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” had been growing. “In the past 21 months, we’ve had very strong results for both Hulu and Comedy Central, in terms of the views and revenue we’ve generated,” says Andy Forssell, Hulu SVP.
Three of the broadcast networks, ABC, NBC and Fox, own stakes in Hulu. Viacom’s decision may suggest that the economics of Hulu make less sense for content providers that lack equity in the Web site.
It isn't as though online availability now will cease. It is simply that viewers will have to navigate to the Viacom-owned sites.
No Daily Show for Hulu
You might say it is a skirmish in the wider war over content pay walls and other ways content owners want to preserve the value of their copyrights in the online ecosystem.
Consider the move a vote to protect and preserve the value of multi-channel video distribution. that isn't to say content owners are averse to extended online distribution, only to note that, at the moment, the value of multi-channel revenue streams vastly outweighs what Viacom has been able to realize from Hulu distribution.
Comedy Central apparently will continue to stream full episodes of the shows on TheDailyShow.com and ColbertNation.com, where Viacom might believe it can better profit from restricting the content to its own sites.
Hulu executives say revenue for both “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” had been growing. “In the past 21 months, we’ve had very strong results for both Hulu and Comedy Central, in terms of the views and revenue we’ve generated,” says Andy Forssell, Hulu SVP.
Three of the broadcast networks, ABC, NBC and Fox, own stakes in Hulu. Viacom’s decision may suggest that the economics of Hulu make less sense for content providers that lack equity in the Web site.
It isn't as though online availability now will cease. It is simply that viewers will have to navigate to the Viacom-owned sites.
No Daily Show for Hulu
Labels:
Colbert,
Daily Show,
Hulu,
online video,
Viacom
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.
2009 Was Tough for Cable and Telcos, 2010 Will Be a Bit Better
Fitch Ratings analysts say 2010 will be a better year for telcos and cable providers. There are challenges, to be sure. But the biggest question is whether cable and telco companies will be able to keep finding new revenue sources to replace those being lost.
European telcos face further stagnation of top-line revenues and likely have further to go in the process of cutting operating expenses, say analysts at Fitch Ratings.
The weak economic recovery, continued regulatory pressures, maturing service penetration and strong competition, are some of the key forces putting pressure on cash flow and profit margins.
At the same time, service providers are forced to continually invest in mobile and fixed network upgrades to keep abreast of burgeoning data traffic demands, Fitch says.
To be sure, operators are introducing new services to replace declining revenue sources. But it "looks unlikely that the network operators will benefit from new service revenues in the way they did from SMS data," Fitch says.
Incumbent cable and telco providers in the United States will face many of the same pressures, including increased amounts of competition, wireless substitution and a sluggish economy.
Traditionally, U.S. telecommunications and cable service demand has lagged economic recoveries, and high unemployment, despite the recovery, as well as pressure in the housing sector will put pressure on 2010 financial results.
Fitch expects this lagging trend to continue and any U.S. economic improvement in 2010 will likely not be reflected in telecommunications and cable results until 2011.
"Although the telecom and cable industry has maintained strong liquidity and free cash flow, macroeconomic woes including unemployment rates and a struggling housing market will continue to limit financial growth for the sector," says Michael Weaver, Managing Director at Fitch.
Fitch estimates that aggregate access line losses for 2009 will be approximately 10.5 percent for retail local telecommunications providers. There was a bit of a change in 2009 as slower losses to cable voice providers was offset by higher business access line losses.
Business and residential access line losses should stabilize in 2010 and continue in the range of 3 million to 3.2 million each quarter, which would represent a yearly loss of approximately 12 percent, says Fitch. There is a statistical artifact here.
As the base of voice lines declines, a fixed number of lost lines represents a larger percentage change than it used to. So although it appears at first glance that line loss is accelerating, that is not the case. The decline is steady, but larger in percentage terms.
The loss of legacy revenue of course heightens the importance of new revenue sources for fixed network operators. Broadband access had been such a driver in the 1990s and early 2000s, but is less significant now that the market is saturated or nearly saturated. Fitch estimates that high-speed access subscriber growth slowed in 2009 to 1.7 million net subscriber additions.
In 2010, net new additions should slow further to 1.4 million accounts. But make note: Fitch believes wireless broadband substitution now is poised to become a material factor in line growth.
Multi-channel video likewise has been a growth driver for Verizon and AT&T, but also is slowing. Fitch estimates that net new video customers will grow by two million subscribers in 2009, slowing in 2010 to approximately 1.5 million.
Commercial service revenue will face a roughly flat situation in 2010 after 2009 declines over six percent for wireline companies. In 2010, commercial revenue will grow about one percent.
In total, Fitch estimates that aggregate wireline revenues will decline in 2010 near the mid-single-digit range, a modest improvement over 2009. EBITDA will similarly fall in aggregate by a low- to mid-single-digit range for the industry as benefits from headcount reductions offset losses of high-margin legacy services.
Cable operators also saw accelerating video subscriber losses in 2009 with a reduction of approximately 2.75 percent. Subscriber losses are the result of weak new home growth, but more important, they are the result of competitive erosion from direct broadcast satellite and telco video offerings.
The cable basic subscriber erosion rate will accelerate in 2010 as competitive pressure remains fairly constant, but there will not be the lift from digital television conversion that boosted cable performance in the first and second quarter of 2009.
Fitch estimates that basic subscriber erosion will increase to approximately 3.5 percent in 2010. High=speed access additions also slowed materially for cable operators in 2009, and Fitch expects subscriber growth of approximately 1.7 million in 2010.
New DOCSIS 3.0 services should help cable operators in the commercial space, though.
Cable telephony subscriber growth rates fell rapidly in 2009 with a reduction of over 40 percent, but with operators still adding two million net subscribers. Fitch estimates that cable telephony net additions will fall to 1.4 million in 2010 as wireless substitution and weak housing-starts affect results.
Cable operators successfully increased their share of the small business and home office market in 2009. Fitch estimates that commercial service revenue increased by approximately 25 percent for cable companies in 2009.
In 2010, operators will start to move up to the mid-size business customer segment in 2010. Fitch estimates that cable revenues will increase in the three percent to five percent range in 2010 and that firm margins will lead to a similar level of EBITDA growth.
Fitch estimates that the total wireless subscriber base grew by about five percent in 2009 andwill slow to four percent in 2010.
Post-paid net additions declining by 42 percent for 2009 compared to a 36 percent decline in 2008. However, data services and advanced devices such as smartphones, netbooks and aircards kept post-paid gross additions relatively flat in 2009. That might not be too comforting, as it shows churn rates are greater than new customer acquisition.
Fitch estimates that prepaid net additions will increase by nearly nine million in 2009 compared to approximately five million for post-paid. Fitch expects that pre-paid additions will again achieve in 2010 a level similar to 2009.
Voice average revenue per user (ARPU) continues to erode at a growing pace approaching double digits in 2009 in part due to lower roaming revenue. This trend will continue in 2010 and at a level equal to or even higher than 2009.
Data ARPU growth has limited the impact of voice ARPU erosion on total ARPU, which has remained relatively steady. Fitch continues to believe that strong data growth will again be achieved in 2010.
In aggregate, Fitch forecasts that wireless revenue will increase in the mid- to high-single-digit range in 2010 and that margins may erode slightly because of higher marketing and retention costs and the success of unlimited prepaid plans.
Fitch expects that capital expenditure will be flat in 2010. Free cash flow increased by 20 percent in 2009 as companies materially reduced capital expenditures.
Fitch believes that FCF will again increase in 2010 by approximately 10 percent due to modestly higher aggregate EBITDA and continued low levels of capital expenditure.
Fitch Ratings
Labels:
cable,
telco,
telco competition
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, March 1, 2010
Do People Pay for "Access" When "Buying Content"?
James McQuirvey, Forrester Research VP, thinks people often pay for "access" when they "buy content." It's a complicated idea, in some ways. The point is that "access" still provides lots of ecosystem value.
Labels:
business model,
content,
ecosystem
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.
Collaboration is More than "Communications"
Collaboration is much more than communications, as Dave Michels points out. That is an area of fuzziness when we now speak of "unified communications and collaboration."
Communications is supposed to aid and foster collaboration. "Unified" approaches are supposed to help. Sometimes they do. But not always.
Some of us are unfortunately old enough to remember when new investments in local area networks and related technology were supposed to improve productivity. Then we went for a decade without seeing measurable productivity gains people could agree on.
Then we had a decade when those investments finally seemed to pay off. The point here is that productivity gains sometimes require retraining people, so processes can be redesigned. And that can take a while. More than just a couple of years, as it turns out.
That does not mean IP communications will fail to deliver meaningful productivity gains. It does mean we often overestimate what is possible in the near term. But we also tend to underestimate what is possible longer term.
Somebody recently reminded me that some of us can remember a world before "Carterfone." Others just "heard about it." Of course, the Carterfone decision happened about 42 years ago. The issue then was simply the legal right to attach a modem to the public switched telephone network.
Where we are today began with Carterfone, but has far outstripped what anybody might have believed was possible. One suspects the world will be affected far beyond what anybody now can imagine in another 40 years.
We are likely then to face incredulous looks when people are told how work and play was mediated by networks in 2010. "That's all you could do?" is likely to be their response. Of course, in 2050 we will be about as far from Carterfone as Carterfone was from the invention of the telephone.
We will get further than any of us can now imagine. But we can go a decade or so before any important innovation has time to really change the way people live and work.
And some innovations just never have too much long-lasting impact. ISDN, ATM, and OSI come to mind. Don't worry, in some ways they are just like Carterfone: steps on a long journey.
Communications is supposed to aid and foster collaboration. "Unified" approaches are supposed to help. Sometimes they do. But not always.
Some of us are unfortunately old enough to remember when new investments in local area networks and related technology were supposed to improve productivity. Then we went for a decade without seeing measurable productivity gains people could agree on.
Then we had a decade when those investments finally seemed to pay off. The point here is that productivity gains sometimes require retraining people, so processes can be redesigned. And that can take a while. More than just a couple of years, as it turns out.
That does not mean IP communications will fail to deliver meaningful productivity gains. It does mean we often overestimate what is possible in the near term. But we also tend to underestimate what is possible longer term.
Somebody recently reminded me that some of us can remember a world before "Carterfone." Others just "heard about it." Of course, the Carterfone decision happened about 42 years ago. The issue then was simply the legal right to attach a modem to the public switched telephone network.
Where we are today began with Carterfone, but has far outstripped what anybody might have believed was possible. One suspects the world will be affected far beyond what anybody now can imagine in another 40 years.
We are likely then to face incredulous looks when people are told how work and play was mediated by networks in 2010. "That's all you could do?" is likely to be their response. Of course, in 2050 we will be about as far from Carterfone as Carterfone was from the invention of the telephone.
We will get further than any of us can now imagine. But we can go a decade or so before any important innovation has time to really change the way people live and work.
And some innovations just never have too much long-lasting impact. ISDN, ATM, and OSI come to mind. Don't worry, in some ways they are just like Carterfone: steps on a long journey.
Labels:
Carterfone,
collaboration,
unified communications
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.
What Does iTunes and App Store Behavior Indicate?
About 75 percent of iTunes digital music buyers are 25 or older, says Forester Research analyst Mark Mulligan. I admit I haven't been paying any attention to the demographics of iTunes downloaders, so that comes as a surprise to me.
Apple iPhone app "for fee" downloads, on the other hand, seem to be growing at a faster rate than iTunes songs did. I haven't seen age demographics on iPhone downloads, but it stands to reason that users 25 and older are the dominant iPhone demographic. In 2008 and 2009 it appears that about 30 percent of iPhone buyers were younger than 25.
What might all that mean? Mulligan argues that music products are not as interesting to buyers as applications are. He also argues that music is not as important to buyers under 25 as it seems to be among users older than 25.
The implication there is that iTunes and music downloads have not quite caught on with younger users as one might casually assume is the case. One might note that music purchases might be more common among users with higher disposable income, which would skew to older demographics.
One might argue that music is just as important to younger users as older users, but that sideloading or illegal downloads are the dominant acquisition method.
Mulligan's observation is that the music industry still has not found a way to increase the attractiveness of its product among the upcoming generations of consumers.
I'm not entirely convinced that conclusion is completely warranted. It might be the case that downloads are driven by users 25 and older, just as music downloads seem to be.
On the other hand, one has to note that gaming applications are arguably more popular with iPod "touch" users, use of which definitely skews to the teen market segment. I'm not sure how downloading of paid apps stacks up in that demographic.
One might argue that what iTunes and the App Store have shown is a clear value for users as a means of content and application distribution channel, irrespective of age. So far, "free" apps seem to constitute 85 to 90 percent of all downloads from the App Store.
Apple iPhone app "for fee" downloads, on the other hand, seem to be growing at a faster rate than iTunes songs did. I haven't seen age demographics on iPhone downloads, but it stands to reason that users 25 and older are the dominant iPhone demographic. In 2008 and 2009 it appears that about 30 percent of iPhone buyers were younger than 25.
What might all that mean? Mulligan argues that music products are not as interesting to buyers as applications are. He also argues that music is not as important to buyers under 25 as it seems to be among users older than 25.
The implication there is that iTunes and music downloads have not quite caught on with younger users as one might casually assume is the case. One might note that music purchases might be more common among users with higher disposable income, which would skew to older demographics.
One might argue that music is just as important to younger users as older users, but that sideloading or illegal downloads are the dominant acquisition method.
Mulligan's observation is that the music industry still has not found a way to increase the attractiveness of its product among the upcoming generations of consumers.
I'm not entirely convinced that conclusion is completely warranted. It might be the case that downloads are driven by users 25 and older, just as music downloads seem to be.
On the other hand, one has to note that gaming applications are arguably more popular with iPod "touch" users, use of which definitely skews to the teen market segment. I'm not sure how downloading of paid apps stacks up in that demographic.
One might argue that what iTunes and the App Store have shown is a clear value for users as a means of content and application distribution channel, irrespective of age. So far, "free" apps seem to constitute 85 to 90 percent of all downloads from the App Store.
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.
Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, in 1986
Google CEO Eric Schmidt in 1986. Times do change! Kind of like looking at your high school yearbook, eh?
Labels:
Eric Scmidt,
Google
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 Adds "Nearby" Function for Search
Location has become an important part of the way we search, the Google Blog says, in something of an understatement.
"Simply put, location changes everything," Wired technology writer Mat Honan has said. That might be an exaggeration, but one intuitively can sense the potential to change behavior in the real world, if people easily can ascertain what is around them.
The key for marketers is to understand what kinds of information people want when they're tied to a certain place. One analogy might be that search solved the "what is" problem. Social networking provides a "who" context filter. Location awareness changes the "where" context.
In the early going, people are going to experiment with retail location offers. just as in the early days of the World Wide Web companies put up brochures online. But as the Web moved from static to active, interactive and real-time applications, so will the use of "location" features.
One might say the shift is from manually searching for "what is around me" to having that information show up automatically, without having to ask. Promotions and advertising will be important, but so will new applications that relate to where a person is, right now.
That might mean on-the-spot offers for travelers waiting to board a flight, missed connection options, or seat upgrade information.
"If you're a foodie looking for restaurant details, food blogs or the closest farmer's market, location can be vital to helping you find the right information," Google says. "Starting today, we've added the ability to refine your searches with the 'Nearby' tool in the 'Search Options' panel.
The search process also has been revised, Google says. If "Minneapolis" is the query, results will be returned for "St. Paul" or "Twin Cities," as well as "Minneapolis."
"Simply put, location changes everything," Wired technology writer Mat Honan has said. That might be an exaggeration, but one intuitively can sense the potential to change behavior in the real world, if people easily can ascertain what is around them.
The key for marketers is to understand what kinds of information people want when they're tied to a certain place. One analogy might be that search solved the "what is" problem. Social networking provides a "who" context filter. Location awareness changes the "where" context.
In the early going, people are going to experiment with retail location offers. just as in the early days of the World Wide Web companies put up brochures online. But as the Web moved from static to active, interactive and real-time applications, so will the use of "location" features.
One might say the shift is from manually searching for "what is around me" to having that information show up automatically, without having to ask. Promotions and advertising will be important, but so will new applications that relate to where a person is, right now.
That might mean on-the-spot offers for travelers waiting to board a flight, missed connection options, or seat upgrade information.
"If you're a foodie looking for restaurant details, food blogs or the closest farmer's market, location can be vital to helping you find the right information," Google says. "Starting today, we've added the ability to refine your searches with the 'Nearby' tool in the 'Search Options' panel.
The search process also has been revised, Google says. If "Minneapolis" is the query, results will be returned for "St. Paul" or "Twin Cities," as well as "Minneapolis."
Labels:
Google,
local search,
mobile advertising,
search
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, February 28, 2010
Regulatory Pendulum Swings: But Which Way?
In the telecommunications business, the regulatory pendulum swings all the time, though slowly. So periods of relatively less-active regulation are followed by periods of relatively more active rule-making, then again followed by periods of deregulation.
It has been apparent for a couple of years that the regulatory pendulum in the the U.S. telecom arena was swinging towards more regulation.
What now is unclear, though, is whether such new rules will largely revolve around consumer protection and copyright or might extend further into fundamental business practices.
Current Federal Communications Commission inquiries into wireless handset subsidies and contract bundling, application of wireline Internet policies to service wireless providers, as well as the creation of new "network neutrality" rules are examples.
But so will the settting of a national broadband policy likely result in more regulation. And there are some voices calling for regulating broadband access, which always has been viewed as a non-regulated data service, as a common carrier service.
One example is a recent speech given by Lawrence Strickling, National Telecommunications and Information Administration assistant secretary, to the Media Institute.
He said the United States faces "an increasingly urgent set of questions regarding the roles of the commercial sector, civil society, governments, and multi-stakeholder institutions in the very dynamic evolution of the Internet."
Strickling notes that “leaving the Internet alone” has been the nation’s Internet policy since the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s. The primary government imperative then was just to get out of the way to encourage its growth.
"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet," Strickling said. "But that was then and this is now."
Policy isues have ben growing since 2001, he argued, namely privacy, security and copyright infringement. For that reason, "I don’t think any of you in this room really believe that we should leave the Internet alone," he said.
In a clear shift away from market-based operation, Strickling said the Internet has "no natural laws to guide it."
And Strickling pointed to security, copyright, peering and packet discrimination. So government has to get involved, he said, for NTIA particilarly on issues relating to "trust" for users on the Internet.
Those issues represent relatively minor new regulatory moves. But they are illustrative of the wider shift of government thinking. Of course, the question must be asked: how stable is the climate?
Generally speaking, changes of political party at the presidential level have directly affected the climate for telecom policy frameworks. And while a year ago it might have seemed likely that telecom policy was clearly headed for a much more intrusive policy regime, all that now is unclear.
A reasonable and informed person might have argued in November 2008 that "more regulation" was going to be a trend lasting a period of at least eight years, and probably longer, possibly decades.
None of that is certain any longer. All of which means the trend towards more regulation, though on the current agenda, is itself an unstable development. One might wonder whether it is going to last much longer.
That is not to say some issues, such as copyright protection or consumer protection from identity theft. for example, might not continue to get attention in any case. But the re-regulatory drift on much-larger questions, such as whether broadband is a data or common carrier service, or whether wireless and cable operators should be common carriers, might not continue along the same path.
You can make your own decision about whether those are good or bad things. The point is that presidential elections matter, and the outcome of the 2012 election no longer is certain.
It has been apparent for a couple of years that the regulatory pendulum in the the U.S. telecom arena was swinging towards more regulation.
What now is unclear, though, is whether such new rules will largely revolve around consumer protection and copyright or might extend further into fundamental business practices.
Current Federal Communications Commission inquiries into wireless handset subsidies and contract bundling, application of wireline Internet policies to service wireless providers, as well as the creation of new "network neutrality" rules are examples.
But so will the settting of a national broadband policy likely result in more regulation. And there are some voices calling for regulating broadband access, which always has been viewed as a non-regulated data service, as a common carrier service.
One example is a recent speech given by Lawrence Strickling, National Telecommunications and Information Administration assistant secretary, to the Media Institute.
He said the United States faces "an increasingly urgent set of questions regarding the roles of the commercial sector, civil society, governments, and multi-stakeholder institutions in the very dynamic evolution of the Internet."
Strickling notes that “leaving the Internet alone” has been the nation’s Internet policy since the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s. The primary government imperative then was just to get out of the way to encourage its growth.
"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet," Strickling said. "But that was then and this is now."
Policy isues have ben growing since 2001, he argued, namely privacy, security and copyright infringement. For that reason, "I don’t think any of you in this room really believe that we should leave the Internet alone," he said.
In a clear shift away from market-based operation, Strickling said the Internet has "no natural laws to guide it."
And Strickling pointed to security, copyright, peering and packet discrimination. So government has to get involved, he said, for NTIA particilarly on issues relating to "trust" for users on the Internet.
Those issues represent relatively minor new regulatory moves. But they are illustrative of the wider shift of government thinking. Of course, the question must be asked: how stable is the climate?
Generally speaking, changes of political party at the presidential level have directly affected the climate for telecom policy frameworks. And while a year ago it might have seemed likely that telecom policy was clearly headed for a much more intrusive policy regime, all that now is unclear.
A reasonable and informed person might have argued in November 2008 that "more regulation" was going to be a trend lasting a period of at least eight years, and probably longer, possibly decades.
None of that is certain any longer. All of which means the trend towards more regulation, though on the current agenda, is itself an unstable development. One might wonder whether it is going to last much longer.
That is not to say some issues, such as copyright protection or consumer protection from identity theft. for example, might not continue to get attention in any case. But the re-regulatory drift on much-larger questions, such as whether broadband is a data or common carrier service, or whether wireless and cable operators should be common carriers, might not continue along the same path.
You can make your own decision about whether those are good or bad things. The point is that presidential elections matter, and the outcome of the 2012 election no longer is certain.
Labels:
broadband plan,
cable regulation,
deregulation,
FCC,
network neutrality,
telecom deregulation
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.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Nexus One for Verizon
The Google-specified Nexus One, released on T-Mobile USA's network in January, will launch on March 23, 2010 on Verizon Wireless, a source says.
Verizon will introduce the Nexus One on the day the International CTIA wireless show begins, Neowin reports.
Pricing and terms of use are not known but likely will be "competitive" with T-Mobile's positioning.
The Nexus One is available for T-Mobile on an unlocked basis for a price of $529. Consumers can also order the phone through T-Mobile for $179 with a two-year contract.
Verizon will introduce the Nexus One on the day the International CTIA wireless show begins, Neowin reports.
Pricing and terms of use are not known but likely will be "competitive" with T-Mobile's positioning.
The Nexus One is available for T-Mobile on an unlocked basis for a price of $529. Consumers can also order the phone through T-Mobile for $179 with a two-year contract.
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.
Palm in "Death Spiral"?
"Death spiral" is not a word any company executive ever hopes to see or hear in the same sentence as the firm name. But that's what Barron writer Eric Savitz now does. "I fear Palm has begun sliding into a death spiral," he says. "Palm is simply too small, too poor and too weak to compete in a market where some of the world's most powerful companies are vying for supremacy."
Though its competitors will not lament the potential loss of one contestant in the market, the webOS software Palm developed also is described by Savitz as "brilliant." Walt Mossberg at The Wall Street Journal in a review last summer called the Pre "potentially the strongest rival to the iPhone to date."
"There's just one problem: No one is buying the phones," he says. Palm now says revenue for its fiscal year, ending in May, will be well below its previous forecast of $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion. The problem, Palm said, is "slower than expected consumer adoption of the company's products." In other words, the Pixi and the Pre aren't selling.
Whether Palm somehow can pull off a turn-around is not clear, nor is it clear whether the company will wind up being sold to another firm. But webOS is yet another illustration of the fact that in the technology business, the "best" product does not always win.
Though its competitors will not lament the potential loss of one contestant in the market, the webOS software Palm developed also is described by Savitz as "brilliant." Walt Mossberg at The Wall Street Journal in a review last summer called the Pre "potentially the strongest rival to the iPhone to date."
"There's just one problem: No one is buying the phones," he says. Palm now says revenue for its fiscal year, ending in May, will be well below its previous forecast of $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion. The problem, Palm said, is "slower than expected consumer adoption of the company's products." In other words, the Pixi and the Pre aren't selling.
Whether Palm somehow can pull off a turn-around is not clear, nor is it clear whether the company will wind up being sold to another firm. But webOS is yet another illustration of the fact that in the technology business, the "best" product does not always win.
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.
Is UC Still Relevant and Growing?
IP-based communications often has not developed as its supporters have forecast. Suppliers thought it was an "enterprise" product, but VoIP erupted in the consumer space. That actually has been the rule, of late, not the exception.
Email, the Internet, instant messaging, text messaging, search, social networking, broadband and mobility all gained traction in the consumer space and then were forced upon enterprises.
Has unified communications now been superseded by social media and mobile devices? For many enterprise executives, that is a rhetorical question, though it might not be so rhetorical for smaller organizations or individuals.
Contact centers remain the province of enterprise-class unified communications solutions and nearly all office environments, as well as for traveling workers who need access to home office communications features.
Global businesses likewise benefit from enterprise-grade unified communications more than small, local businesses and organizations.
Since supplier organizations tend to mirror the organizations they sell to, that means many large suppliers of unified communications believe in its value because they themselves are large, far-flung organizations in best position to leverage UC and other collaboration tools.
What is not so self evidently clear is that the same level of benefit is obtained by smaller, more localized user organizations and firms.
"These customers aren’t worried about presence and a unified portal," says David Burnand, a former Siemens enterprise communications executive. In fact, "many of them run their business using mobile handsets, simple PBXs, social media, Skype and Google Voice."
Many use elements of unified communications, including single number services, video-calling and instant messaging. They just don’t call it unified communications, or use those tools because they are "unified." They use point solutions because they solve real problems.
The point, says Burnand, is that "old school" definitions of unified communications do not hold.
UC is no longer about managing a desk phone, mobile, Windows PC and many other devices. The smart phone has made that view redundant for all except the power users, he argues.
Instead, it is evolving into skinny applications for low-end users and specialist applications for power users, mixed with a dose of social media, a splash of video and a few Web-based collaboration tools.
That will be an unsettling view for many unified communications or collaboration suppliers, as it suggests the "UC market" is far smaller than many would have predicted for hoped for.
Email, the Internet, instant messaging, text messaging, search, social networking, broadband and mobility all gained traction in the consumer space and then were forced upon enterprises.
Has unified communications now been superseded by social media and mobile devices? For many enterprise executives, that is a rhetorical question, though it might not be so rhetorical for smaller organizations or individuals.
Contact centers remain the province of enterprise-class unified communications solutions and nearly all office environments, as well as for traveling workers who need access to home office communications features.
Global businesses likewise benefit from enterprise-grade unified communications more than small, local businesses and organizations.
Since supplier organizations tend to mirror the organizations they sell to, that means many large suppliers of unified communications believe in its value because they themselves are large, far-flung organizations in best position to leverage UC and other collaboration tools.
What is not so self evidently clear is that the same level of benefit is obtained by smaller, more localized user organizations and firms.
"These customers aren’t worried about presence and a unified portal," says David Burnand, a former Siemens enterprise communications executive. In fact, "many of them run their business using mobile handsets, simple PBXs, social media, Skype and Google Voice."
Many use elements of unified communications, including single number services, video-calling and instant messaging. They just don’t call it unified communications, or use those tools because they are "unified." They use point solutions because they solve real problems.
The point, says Burnand, is that "old school" definitions of unified communications do not hold.
UC is no longer about managing a desk phone, mobile, Windows PC and many other devices. The smart phone has made that view redundant for all except the power users, he argues.
Instead, it is evolving into skinny applications for low-end users and specialist applications for power users, mixed with a dose of social media, a splash of video and a few Web-based collaboration tools.
That will be an unsettling view for many unified communications or collaboration suppliers, as it suggests the "UC market" is far smaller than many would have predicted for hoped for.
Labels:
UC,
unified communications
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, February 26, 2010
Global Voice Penetration Really is a Miracle
By the end of 2009, there were an estimated 4.6 billion mobile cellular subscriptions, corresponding to 67 per 100 inhabitants globally, says a new report from the International Telecommunications Union.
Last year, mobile cellular penetration in developing countries passed the 50 per cent mark reaching an estimated 57 per 100 inhabitants at the end of 2009. Even though this remains well below the average in developed countries, where penetration exceeds 100 per cent, the rate of progress remains remarkable.
Indeed, mobile cellular penetration in developing countries has more than doubled since 2005, when it stood at only 23 per cent.
Not many will recognize this success for the great achievement it really is. Policymakers of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s would be, and probably are, shocked at what has happened. In days past, the thinking was that getting phone service to people who had never made a phone call would be stubbornly difficult. I do not recall anybody suggesting mobile technology would do the trick.
The broadband gap, though significant, also is showing dramatic progress, and again because of mobile networks.
There is a "problem" people and organizations who "solve problems" often have: they cannot recognize victory. Many difficult problems actually get fixed. When they do get fixed, rejoice and move on.
Getting voice services and now broadband broadly adopted throughout the world is a huge, miraculous success.
Last year, mobile cellular penetration in developing countries passed the 50 per cent mark reaching an estimated 57 per 100 inhabitants at the end of 2009. Even though this remains well below the average in developed countries, where penetration exceeds 100 per cent, the rate of progress remains remarkable.
Indeed, mobile cellular penetration in developing countries has more than doubled since 2005, when it stood at only 23 per cent.
Not many will recognize this success for the great achievement it really is. Policymakers of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s would be, and probably are, shocked at what has happened. In days past, the thinking was that getting phone service to people who had never made a phone call would be stubbornly difficult. I do not recall anybody suggesting mobile technology would do the trick.
The broadband gap, though significant, also is showing dramatic progress, and again because of mobile networks.
There is a "problem" people and organizations who "solve problems" often have: they cannot recognize victory. Many difficult problems actually get fixed. When they do get fixed, rejoice and move on.
Getting voice services and now broadband broadly adopted throughout the world is a huge, miraculous success.
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.
Enterprise Workers Ready to Ditch Their PCs for Smartphones?
Something rather unusual seems to be happening in the enterprise mobility space. According to a recent survey taken by iPass, 63 percent of mobile employees prefer to use a smartphone, not a laptop, as their primary mobile device, for trips of any length.
For trips of up to five days, 59 percent of respondents prefer to carry a smartphone, while 41 percent prefer a laptop. For trips lasting longer than 30 days, 64 percent prefer a smartphone to a laptop.
That likely is testament to the high value traveling workers place on voice and text communications, as well as the increased capabilities smartphones now offer, including email and Web access.
But the findings also suggest that some enterprises are over-investing in laptops and software and might need to look at scenarios where mobile or traveling workers can get along just fine with smartphones.
There is another and possibly darker view here as well. Industry suppliers have been touting mobility investments as a driver of productivity. As it now appears, enterprise workers do not even want to carry laptops with them when traveling. So what is the value of all those investments in remote access?
Granted, most enterprises likely are trying to get a better handle on mobile phone expenses, so indiscriminate replacment might not be wise. But the survey also suggests the near-universal embrace of the BlackBerry has "soft" support from users.
According to the iPass survey, while 32 percent of mobile employees ranked the BlackBerry smartphone as their mobile device of choice, 54 percent of BlackBerry smartphone users would switch to an Apple iPhone if it was supported by their enterprise.
"Mobility" also once was an issue of supporting traveling workers. Today every employee
is a potential mobile employee, iPass says. While many mobile employees have some business travel, many more are logging in from home.
About 68 percent of iPass survey respondents did not travel during the last quarter of 2009, but 45.8 percent of mobile employees logged in from home at least twice a month, and 16.8 percent logged in more than ten times a month.
Excluding home and the office, mobile employees most often log in from hotels (42.6 percent), airports (27.2 percent), retail outlets and restaurants (27 percent).
According to the iPass survey, while 32 percent of mobile employees ranked the BlackBerry smartphone as their mobile device of choice, 54 percent of BlackBerry smartphone users would switch to an Apple iPhone if it was supported by their enterprise.
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.
Telco Choice is Not "Dumb Pipe" or "Service Enabler" or "Service Provider"
There's no question that the fundamental business underpinning of the entire global telecommunications business is undergoing a fundamental change from "voice driven" to "broadband driven," and, to a certain extent, from "services" to "access."
That leads to a fear that the future is one of "dumb pipe" access services providing modest revenue and slimmer profit margins than any existing provider can tolerate, without significant downsizing of operational cost.
Many observers suggest service providers will gradually take on more "application enabler" roles, supporting third-party business partners.
At the same time, there is debate about the degree to which any existing video or voice service provider will be able to continue doing so in the future.
But those three choices are not mutually exclusive. For better or worse, "dumb pipe" access is a permanent foundation for every telco, mobile, cable, satellite or fixed wireless provider. That is precisely what "broadband access" is; a simple "access" service.
That does not mean "only" access will be provided. There likely will be some permanent role for managed video, voice, storage, backup and other services. At some combination of value and price, users simply will prefer to buy such "services" rather than use comparable applications.
At the same time, it is likely service providers will find ways to grow the percentage of their revenue earned by supplying services to business partners. That might include billing services, location and device information, hosted processing or storage services.
"Dumb pipe" access is not the only business of the future, but it is foundational, and permanent. In addition to that, though, today's service providers necessarily will have to grow the proportion of revenue they make from "enabling" services, as they manage a likely decline of "services" such as basic voice communications or multi-channel video.
And it is not necessarily that those services decline because of a shift in user demand. The simple existence of capable competitors means market shifts will occur, irrespective of any conceivable shifts of demand. In other words, one does not have to make a definitive bet on "over the top" voice or video to plan on lower revenue from existing voice or video sources. One simply must assume that capable competitors will take some amount of market share.
In other words, at the level of discrete enterprises, cable executives have to anticipate declining video customer base and revenue contribution, while telcos have to assume declining gross voice revenue. No shift of demand to online video or VoIP need be assumed.
To be sure, those forces likely will be factors. But it is not the case that a stark choice must be made between the "dumb pipe" access provider and the "service enablement" or "service provider" roles. All three will remain parts of the overall revenue stream.
That leads to a fear that the future is one of "dumb pipe" access services providing modest revenue and slimmer profit margins than any existing provider can tolerate, without significant downsizing of operational cost.
Many observers suggest service providers will gradually take on more "application enabler" roles, supporting third-party business partners.
At the same time, there is debate about the degree to which any existing video or voice service provider will be able to continue doing so in the future.
But those three choices are not mutually exclusive. For better or worse, "dumb pipe" access is a permanent foundation for every telco, mobile, cable, satellite or fixed wireless provider. That is precisely what "broadband access" is; a simple "access" service.
That does not mean "only" access will be provided. There likely will be some permanent role for managed video, voice, storage, backup and other services. At some combination of value and price, users simply will prefer to buy such "services" rather than use comparable applications.
At the same time, it is likely service providers will find ways to grow the percentage of their revenue earned by supplying services to business partners. That might include billing services, location and device information, hosted processing or storage services.
"Dumb pipe" access is not the only business of the future, but it is foundational, and permanent. In addition to that, though, today's service providers necessarily will have to grow the proportion of revenue they make from "enabling" services, as they manage a likely decline of "services" such as basic voice communications or multi-channel video.
And it is not necessarily that those services decline because of a shift in user demand. The simple existence of capable competitors means market shifts will occur, irrespective of any conceivable shifts of demand. In other words, one does not have to make a definitive bet on "over the top" voice or video to plan on lower revenue from existing voice or video sources. One simply must assume that capable competitors will take some amount of market share.
In other words, at the level of discrete enterprises, cable executives have to anticipate declining video customer base and revenue contribution, while telcos have to assume declining gross voice revenue. No shift of demand to online video or VoIP need be assumed.
To be sure, those forces likely will be factors. But it is not the case that a stark choice must be made between the "dumb pipe" access provider and the "service enablement" or "service provider" roles. All three will remain parts of the overall revenue stream.
Labels:
consumer behavior,
dumb pipe,
marketing,
telco strategy
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)
At Alphabet, AI Correlates with Higher Revenue
Though many of the revenue-lifting impacts of artificial intelligence arguably are indirect, as AI fuels the performance of products using ...
-
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...












