How Investment Rules Shape Canada's Communications Market

No set of government regulations, no matter the intent, always and everywhere have impact strictly confined to the problem the rules are meant to address. In fact, the unplanned and unexpected consequences can work to undermine the "solutions" the rules are supposed to achieve. 

Like many other countries, Canada has foreign investment rules that prohibit non-Canadian firms from owning a majority of shares of leading communications service providers. In Canada's case the rule is that no foreign entity can own more than 33.3 percent of voting shares in a dominant Canadian telco. 

On the other hand, foreign firms can own up to 100 percent of Canadian service providers with market share of 10 percent or less. 

Some Canadian telcos now think the rules are unfair. The rules, for example, can allow much-larger foreign telcos to get a foothold in the Canadian market by investing in smaller firms. On the other hand, the foreign ownership rules also mean that the large Canadian providers are not able to attract the same level of investment as the smaller firms. 

Rogers, Telus and BCE, for example, think the foreign ownership rules should be relaxed, so that every Canadian communications service provider operates under the same rules. 

At least by implication, such regulatory relaxation might also mean that restrictions on the amount of spectrum an incumbent can own, or bid for, could change. Already, some might argue, smaller upstarts could bring huge resources to bear in spectrum auctions, when their foreign parents have deep pockets. 

Oddly enough, rules designed to protect Canadian service providers might be having the opposite effect. 

FCC Acts to Ease Deployment of Temporary and Small Cells

The Federal Communications Commission says it plans to streamline procedures related to deployment of temporary cell sites, and will this year also act to clear administrative barriers to building small cell sites and distributed antenna systems as well.

The FCC wants to expedite the placement of "temporary cell towers" such as "Cells on Wheels" (COWs) that can be used during special events, or possibly emergencies.

The FCC also says it will act to expedite the deployment of small cells and distributed antenna systems. 

In the communications business, we sometimes forget that regulatory and legislative bodies enable, or can bar, creation of communications businesses. Financing, entrepreneurial skill and technology also are necessary, as well as clear value for end users. But it all begins with government permission to use spectrum, or to allow entities to enter a market.

Younger observers sometimes forget that it once was illegal for any company but one, in any area, to provide telecommunications services, for example. That barrier became more porous in the 1980s and then became virtually fully open to competition in 1996. 

Still, lots of administrative procedures can raise the cost, and lengthen the time to bring new facilities or services to market, and the FCC wants to reduce some of those obstacles. 

U.K. LTE Auctions Begins

The U.K. auction of spectrum intended to support new Long Term Evolution networks in that country have formally begun. 

And observers expect a bifurcated strategy to emerge, with the leading national mobile service providers, including Vodafone, O2 , Three and EE, largely competing for the 800-MHz frequencies most suitable to national coverage, even in less dense areas.


On the other hand, three potential new providers, including  BT, PCCW and MLL, are expected to bid for the higher frequencies more suitable for denser areas and cities. 

The primary issue of coverage suggests the current national providers want to replicate their 3G coverage when adding LTE. 

The new providers presumably will favor business plans that include wholesale, such as selling LTE capacity to other carriers in heavy-traffic areas, enterprise and business services. In other words, the 2.6-GHz frequencies will lead to building of networks whose primary value is "capacity," not "coverage."

The spectrum will almost double the frequencies available for U.K. mobile broadband  services. 

"Broadband for Everyone" is Not Just a Slogan

Some might think the phrase “broadband for everyone” is only a slogan. On the contrary, over the next decade or so, we might find an extraordinary jump in the percentage of human beings in developing regions who have access to the Internet, can afford to buy access on a regular basis, and therefore create a big business opportunity for suppliers.

For example, if one assumes that in 2005 the middle class population of China was about eight percent, by 2030 it will be as high as 72 percent. In India, where the percentage of middle class people in 2005 was perhaps in the low single digits, by 2030 some 41 percent of India’s people will be middle class, defined as households with annual disposal income between 200,000 rupees up to one million rupees ($3,606 to $18,031 in annual disposable income).

Over the last decade, there has been a 50 percent jump in the number of people in the “middle class in Latin America and the Caribbean, The World Bank reports. Roughly speaking, about 30 percent of people in the Latin American and Caribbean region were middle class in 2009, using a definition of income between $10 a day and $50 a day.

The report on the Latin American middle class  found that the middle class in the region grew to an estimated 152 million in 2009, compared to 103 million in 2003, an increase of 50 percent.

Among the highest achievers were Brazil, which comprised about 40 percent of the region’s middle class growth; Colombia, where 54 percent of people improved their economic status between 1992 and 2008; and Mexico, which had 17 percent of its population join the middle class between 2000 and 2010.

Today, the middle class and the poor in Latin America account for roughly the same share of the population, according to the report.

For suppliers of broadband services, the report is significant for several reasons. First, it shows dramatic growth of the base of consumers who logically will be buyers of Internet access services and products.

The study also suggests an important income threshold of about $10 a day income, the level at which enough economic security has been reached that the household is unlikely to fall back into poverty. That likely has key psychological implications for spending on products such as broadband access.

By a rough rule of thumb that suggests demand for broadband becomes significant once monthly cost falls to about three percent of household income, that $10 a day standard suggests a broadband service (terrestrial) will reach start to reach high levels of adoption at about $9 a month prices, and majority adoption at about $8 a month.

The point, as Canadian hockey star Wayne Gretzky once said, was to “skate to where the puck is going to be.” Even though the player with his stick on the puck mostly has to pay attention to where the puck is, right now, other defensive and offensive players will be thinking ahead to where the puck will be.

Suppliers of broadband access have the same challenge, namely building a business today, for today’s customer, while building towards a future where many billions of people will be able to become customers.

Will U.K. LTE Auctions “Pick Winners and Losers?”

It is of course axiomatic that without access to spectrum, no entity can be in the mobile service provider business. That access can be through owned or leased spectrum, but fundamentally, spectrum access is necessary. That naturally raises the question of whether “winning” fourth generation Long Term Evolution spectrum is “necessary” for a firm to be a market leader in mobile services, in the future.

Some might say so. “The importance of this spectrum auction in shaping the future of the U.K. wireless market cannot be understated,” said Daniel Gleeson, mobile analyst at IHS iSuppli. “Access to spectrum is the main barrier to entry for any company looking to build a new wireless network.”

It is true that seven companies are bidding for spectrum: the country’s four existing mobile operators along with three new players. With only three companies likely to win spectrum, at least one of the United Kingdom’s existing operators is likely to lose out,” said Gleeson.

The four existing players that have entered the auction are EE, O2, Vodafone and Three. The three new entrants are BT, PCCW and MLL Telecom.

Other European spectrum auctions have only seen a maximum of three operators win 800 MHz spectrum. The United Kingdom could follow this pattern, yielding three winners and four losers, IHS iSuppli says.

Among the existing mobile operators, the companies with the most to lose are O2 and Vodafone, which presently do not have 4G spectrum, IHS iSuppli said.

Not securing 800 MHz licenses would be a disaster for O2 or Vodafone, some might argue, even if both firms were to win spectrum at 2.6 GHz. The reason is that 800 MHz is viewed as essential for rural coverage, while the 2.6 GHz spectrum is seen as best suited to urban coverage.

Some might argue that the more likely outcome is that the fourth provider will wind up leasing spectrum from one of the other three providers, so the result might not be catastrophic. Still, owning spectrum arguably is safer than leasing spectrum.

But that analysis assumes the prices paid by the winners are reasonable, in light of the incremental revenue opportunities. Europe’s mobile service providers know well the dangers of overpaying for spectrum, as was the case when the 3G auctions were hold.

Operators overpaid for that spectrum, causing years of financial distress that also threatened  bankruptcy for a few.

So it is possible the U.K. 4G auctions could rearrange business plans, perhaps in unexpected ways. Depending on the outcome, one or two of the leading four providers in the U.K. mobile market might find themselves more limited in terms of national coverage.

One or more of the “winners” might find themselves in more favorable positions, in terms of quality and quantity of spectrum. The auction, by itself, will not immediately change the market share situation. But it could begin a process that does change the market.

Safaricom, Intel Introduce Yolo, Smart Phone for Cost Conscious Kenya Consumers

Safaricom Limited has launched the "Yolo" smart phone, touted as the first smart phone for Africa.

The Yolo is the third model with  Intel branding . 

Yolo is powered by the Intel Atom Z2420 processor (1.2GHz. It also comes with a 3.5-inch touch screen, a 5-megapixel camera with full HD video capture support, FM radio and HSPA+ support.

"We're redefining what cost-conscious Kenyans can expect from a smartphone," said Peter Arina, general manager, Safaricom' s Consumer Business Unit.

The device is aimed at the growing number of cost-conscious and first-time buyers in Kenya who do not want to sacrifice device performance or user experience for cost, Intel says.


The Yolo smartphone will be sold in Safaricom shops countrywide at the entry price of Kshs. 10,999 (about US $125) and comes bundled with a free 500 MBytes of data.

In some ways, the surprise here is the Intel brand being associated with a smart phone, in something other than an "Intel Inside" sense. That might not be so unusual in the future, as any number of mobile service providers might want their own branded phones, in some cases to better integrate with a carrier's own software and applications. 

Smart Phone Market Shifting to Developing Nations, says Samsung

All markets saturate at some point. And the smart phone market might be closer to that point than most believe. In fact, Samsung, in reporting its latest fourth quarter 2012 earnings, already is warning that sales of smart phones will slow in 2013. 

That might be important, as Apple and Samsung represent the two profitable suppliers of smart phones. By most reckoning, all the other smart phone suppliers earn only a little, or lose money. 

"The furious growth spurt seen in the global smart phone market last year is expected to be pacified by intensifying price competition compounded by a slew of new products," Samsung said. In other words, expect slower growth in 2013. To be sure, one might argue that Samsung is talking here about its own prospects.

Growth in the overall market might continue. In fact, that is what Samsung seems to expect. 

"In the first quarter, demand for smart phones in developed countries is expected to decelerate, while their emerging counterparts will see their markets escalate with the introduction of more affordable smart phones and a bigger appetite for tablet PCs throughout the year," Samsung says. 

In other words, the smart phone market is approaching saturation in the developed markets, lower-cost devices will be needed to drive growth in emerging markets, while consumer spending might shift from smart phones to tablets. 

Aside from what a slowing smart phone market might mean for suppliers of smart phones, the big strategic issue for mobile service providers is replacement revenue sources, once smart phone driven data plan sales level off. 

Growth drivers have shifted, over the last couple of decades. For cable operators, it was video, then shifted to broadband access, then to voice, and now to business customer revenues. For fixed network operators growth shifted from voice to broadband to video entertainment. 

For mobile operators, growth shifted from "more customers" (subscriber units)  to messaging plans, to data revenues for Internet access. The coming saturation of the data plan growth driver is the looming strategic issue for mobile service providers. 

With U.S. smart phone penetration above 55 percent, saturation effects will start to show every step of the way to about 80 percent, when growth will really become difficult. That is one reason why some are skeptical about whether Microsoft, Research in Motion and Nokia can hold or establish a sustainable foothold in the market. 

By some reckoning, we are getting late in the game for major market share changes. 

Why Record Sales are a Problem for Apple, Samsung, AT&T and Verizon

The fourth quarter of 2012 was significant for the smart phone business. Apple, Samsung, AT&T and Verizon all had record quarters, where it comes to smart phones. 

Samsung earned record profits in the fourth quarter of 2012, lead by smart phones sales.

Apple reported record financial results in the fourth quarter of 2012, driven by sales of iPhones.

Separately, AT&T sold a record number of smart phones in the fourth quarter.

Verizon reported record smart phone sales as well, in the fourth quarter of 2012.

So you see the pattern: smart phone sales have grown dramatically in the U.S. market, a pattern one can see in other markets as well. But good news can the precursor for bad news down the road, as paradoxical as that sounds.

Virtually all observers will concur that revenue growth in the communications business now is lead by the shift to use of smart phones, which drives mobile data plan revenues. But all observers would also agree that growth will saturate, eventually.

And record sales only bring that saturation point closer. And the crucial question is what comes next, as the industry revenue driver? But there are more immediate questions, as well.
How much more time do rival suppliers really have to establish market share, when Apple and Samsung, which already earn most of the profit in the smart phone business, are possibly widening their already substantial lead in the market? The question probably is most salient for Research in Motion and Nokia.

There are profit margin issues as well. Both AT&T and Verizon reported that subsidies for smart phones, notably the Apple iPhone, were a drag on earnings. So the carriers have a mixed business interest, where it comes to the iPhone. The device drives consumer data plan adoption, but also carries the highest subsidy costs, and therefore hits earnings the hardest. 

The service providers would, in one sense, welcome a hit phone that did not cost so much, in the way of subsidies. The Galaxy is the closest example of that. On the other hand, neither do the service providers want to give one more supplier greater power in the ecosystem, either.

While welcoming Android for providing choice and competition for Apple, service providers likely also want to ensure that Android, in turn, has competition.
And despite the record profits, Samsung also warned that profit margins would be an issue, as marketing expenses are climbing.  Apple’s earnings growth and profit margin also emerged as issues in the fourth quarter of 2012.

The strong smart phone sales trend also means saturation will be reached “faster” in developed markets. And though forecast rates of growth also are high in developing markets, there will be retail price issues to be confronted by both Apple and Samsung.



That would suggest there is reason for the warnings about profit margin. One has to expect that, as the smart phone sales battle shifts to the developing regions, unit prices will have to fall. Typically, as sales of devices shift from developed markets to developing markets, gross revenue growth slows, and profit margins contract.

So, oddly enough, record smart phone sales are hastening the day when "what do we do next?" becomes a very-practical question for executives trying to drive the next quarter's revenue and profit margin numbers.

Who Does Google Really Compete With?

It never is too hard to find a communications executive or company that worries about what Google might do next, or where Google might compete directly with service providers. 

In an abstract sense, Google evokes fear because of its ability to innovate fast, its ability to surround a competitor or business, its cash, its ambition and only as a byproduct its ability to make itself the "thing" consumers bond to, not the ISP dumb pipe. 

Of course, the perceived "threat" is very concrete to some contestants in the communications ecosystem.

The NexusOne handset means Google is a device supplier. The Android handset operating system makes it a major mobile supplier to many other original equipment manufacturers, and gives Google influence over the pace and direction of mobile OS development. Google Play is among the handful of truly significant app stores. 

Google's investment in Clearwire, and past willingness to bid on 700-MHz Long Term Evolution spectrum, mean Google potentially could be viewed as a future access provider in its own right.

Google Fiber, even if only at one location, has become a reality. And some might point to Google Voice, or Google's ownership of dark fiber as other ways Google already is a part of the industry ecosystem.

Google also was on the other side of the net neutrality argument from most service providers.
 And Google Wallet does compete directly with Isis, the mobile wallet backed by AT&T, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA.

Google continues to experiment with mobile and untethered access networks. You might argue Google still has a clear and simple business objective. It makes its money from Internet advertising. People who do not have the Internet cannot become prospects. So Google wants everybody to have Internet access.

Ad inventory also hinges on access speed. Faster page loading, for example, also means Google can display more inventory. In a real sense, ad inventory is contingent on access speed. Experience also shows that faster speed leads to higher usage, and hence more potential to show inventory.

But some would argue that despite its potential future competition with communication service providers, Google has other bigger challenges to face, including Facebook, other search providers, Microsoft and Apple.

And some might even argue that, given the growing importance of mobile "search," commerce is becoming more important. And the firm most significant in that area is Amazon.

That isn't to say there is no scenario under which Google might entertain becoming a mobile service provider, in some way. But that is more attractive to Google only if the biggest ISPs fail to upgrade their networks or extend coverage. 

In the meantime, Google faces greater immediate challenges from the likes of Apple and Facebook, as well as future challenges from the likes of Amazon. 

Mosaic, First Real Web Browser, Turns 20

The web, as a mass medium, is 20 years old in Jan. 2013, some might say. as  Mosaic, the visual web browser, was released on Jan. 23, 1993.

While not the first graphical web browser, it was the most popular one of its time and still the model for today's browsers, many would say.

Unlocking Your U.S. Phone Becomes a Crime Jan. 26, 2013

I'll be most of us did not see this coming: on Jan. 26, 2013, it becomes a federal crime for the buyer of a smart phone to unlock  it, at least before the expiration of the contract, if there is one. 

The change is because a smart phone operating system is considered copyrighted material under provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 

In October 2012, the Librarian of Congress, who can determine exemptions to the DMCA, decided that unlocking mobile phones would no longer be allowed. 

The rule apparently does not apply to devices sold unlocked in the first place, such as full retail price devices, or perhaps any smart phone sold to a user unlocked by the carrier itself. 

Apparently, it will continue to be illegal to unlock a tablet or game console. 

The legal foundation is that users only license, and do not own, the software on their devices. Some might be shocked to learn that the same legal principle  underlies a "purchased" library of songs, as well. 

Actually, it is unclear whether a user actually "owns" the songs in an iTunes library, or are only borrowed. In other words, what used to be a product now is sort of a subscription. 

AT&T Sells Record Number of Smart Phones in 4Q 2012

AT&T Wireless sold a record number of smart phones in the fourth quarter of 2012, selling 10.2 million devices, which AT&T says is the most ever sold by any U.S. service provider in a single quarter. In fact, 89 percent of postpaid phone sales were of smart phones. 

AT&T also reported that wireless revenues grew 5.7 percent year over year, while wireless service revenues grew 4.2 percent.

AT&T had 780,000 wireless postpaid net adds, the largest increase in three years; with a 1.1 million increase in total net wireless subscribers. 

But that growth also came at a price. Since AT&T subsidizes smart phones, and since so many customers purchased Apple iPhones that have the highest subsidy costs in the business, earnings took a hit. In fact, 84 percent of all smart phone sales were iPhones. 

Verizon, for its part, added a "highest-ever" 2.1 million net new wireless contract customers in the fourth quarter, outpacing AT&T's growth. 

As expected, Verizon profit margins on mobile services dropped as smart phone subsidies grew. 

And that is an issue: though service providers want to sell more data subscriptions, which mainly entails selling more smart phones, the device subsidies are a drag on earnings. 

Google to Test Small Cell Network?

For some who worry that Google might someday decide to become an ISP in a bigger way, using either mobile or fiber to the home approaches, here is one more development to stoke concern.

Google filed an application at the Federal Communications Commission seeking permission to test an experimental radio system near its Mountain View, Calif. campus, using as many as 50 base stations and 200 end user devices.

The base stations will be both indoors and outdoors, using a “small cell” design. Indoor sites will have a range of 100 meters to 200 meters, while outdoor cells will have a range of 500 meters to 1000 meters.

Only Google knows what it is testing here. But the specific frequencies requested are 2524 MHz to 2546 MHZ and 2567 MHz to 2625 MHz.

These are bands allocated to the “Educational Broadband Service” (EBS) and the “Broadband Radio Service” (BRS), which are used by Clearwire for its mobile broadband service.

Google has tested a variety of networks and network elements in the past, so the latest effort is not unusual. But Google has suggested spectrum in the 3.55 GHz to 3.65 GHz could be used as part of a shared small cell service.

Google also in the past has asked for permission to test unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz band, 5 GHz band, and the 76-77 GHz band, as well as white spaces.

Aside from Google Fiber, Google also has invested in municipal Wi-Fi tests, invested in Clearwire, sponsored airport Wi-Fi and promised a minimum bid for 700-MHz mobile spectrum as well, in 2007.

The point is that Google remains vitally interested in new ways to expand Internet access, especially high-bandwidth, low cost access.

Google says the initial base station deployment will occur inside 1210 Charleston Road, Mountain View (and possibly 1200 and 1220 Charleston Road), and consist of five to 10 base stations (mounted on ceilings, or walls next to the ceiling, six to eight meters above ground), and up to 40 user devices.

Three base stations will employ directional antennas (dual-slant, two-way multiple input/multiple output, with 17 dBi max antenna gain), mounted on walls and directed toward the building interior; of these, base station one will have a beam width of 65 degrees, a 45 degree horizontal orientation, and a -4 degree vertical orientation; base station two will have a beam width of 90 degrees, a 315 degree horizontal orientation, and a -4 degree vertical orientation; and base station three will have a beam width of 65 degrees, a 210 degree horizontal orientation, and a -4 degree vertical orientation.

Subsequent deployments will occur on building rooftops at 1200, 1210, or 1220 Charleston Road, or possibly other buildings located on the Google campus.

Omni-directional antennas will be mounted either on external building walls at roof height, or on antenna masts above rooftops (extending no more than six meters above the rooftop).

Directional antennas may be used. No building on the campus is higher than 25 meters above ground. Google plans to test up to 50 base stations and 200 user devices during the requested experimental license term, and requests authority to deploy in these quantities. 

Each indoor base station will have a radius of approximately 100 meters to 200 meters. Each outdoor base station will have a radius of approximately 500 meters to 1000 meters.

Mobile Broadband Now Shapes Global "Speed" Metrics

A 2010 study by Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, found fixed network speeds were about four times faster than mobile speeds. The difference in page loading speeds was more dramatic. Fixed network web pages loaded 17 times faster than the mobile pages.

But simple logic also suggests that measures of broadband speed are becoming quite a bit more nuanced than in the past, as the “typical” form of broadband access becomes a “mobile” connection, not a fixed line connection.

That does not mean the absolute volume of data consumption is related in a linear way to the number of subscribers, only that “typical access speed” is a harder thing to describe, than once was the case. Some 84 percent of smart phone users say they use their smart phones to access the Internet, for example.


By the end of 2011, total global mobile subscriptions reached nearly six billion by end 2011, corresponding to a global penetration of 86 percent, according to the International Telecommunications Union.

Growth was driven by developing countries, which accounted for more than 80 percent of the 660 million new mobile subscriptions added in 2011. That is significant. To begin with, mobile connections typically run slower than fixed connections, and developing market connections tend to run slower than connections in developed markets.
That might explain why, in the third quarter of 2012, the global average connection speed declined 6.8 percent to 2.8 Mbps, and the global average peak connection speed declined 1.4 percent to 15.9 Mbps, says Akamai.

According to Ericsson, mobile data use has grown exponentially since about 2008.

Google Fiber "Is Not a Hobby"

Patrick Pichette Google CFO, said on Google’s recent earnings call that Google Fiber is not a hobby. That could mean lots of things, so ISPs should not necessarily make assumptions about what that statement means.

“We really think that we should be making good business with this opportunity and we are going to continue to look at the possibility of expanding, but right now we just got to nail because we are in the early days,” said Pichette.

“Not a hobby” could mean that Google does not intend to lose money on the venture, and is not simply spending money on a “hero” initiative that is not intended to directly sustain itself over the long term.

Contrast that with Apple’s statements some years ago that Apple TV was, in fact, a hobby, implying that commercial impact was not expected.

But “not a hobby” would unsettle other large ISPs much more if it implied Google was seriously entertaining the notion of becoming an ISP in its own right, on a bigger scale.

Those sorts of fears have been expressed in the past, about Google “becoming a telco.” But Google has become a handset supplier, on a limited scale. Google Voice does earn communications revenue. Google Docs does compete with Microsoft’s “Office” suite.

Google does operate a large global backbone network. Likewise, there are, from time to time, discussions of whether Google (or other big application providers) want to become mobile service providers.

And even at the recent Pacific Telecommunications Council meeting, at least a few attendees I spoke with did express concern that Google might in fact be considering a wider and more significant entry into either the local access or backbone transport markets.

In other words, there remains considerable unease about what Google might decide to do, in the communications business.

The concern might be overblown. But there is no doubt about what Google would prefer, and that is higher speeds for most end users and more investment in access networks by the leading ISPs to enable that.

Google’s challenge to leading ISPs is clear enough.

In a highly-competitive market, the low-cost provider tends, over time, to win. That is true with respect to large tier one telcos competing with large tier one cable operators, for example. You might argue that cable gains in high-speed access and fixed network market share provide a clear example.

Some now would argue that ISPs--both fixed network and mobile ISPs--need to match Google’s own costs, on a gigabyte per cents or gigabyte per dollar basis. How well that can be done, and if it can be done, is the question.

But Google has affected service provider thinking before. Remember several years ago when executives started to routinely say they had to “innovate at Google speed?” Doubtless, most would say no telco really is able to innovate that fast. But it might be argued that service providers do now innovate faster than before.

So it might not be unreasonable to argue that if Google continues to demonstrate new cost models for very high speed access, that service providers will respond.

Shifting to costs equivalent to Google’s costs might be a daunting prospect, but less daunting than what could happen if legacy revenue streams erode faster than new revenue replacements can be created.

It is one thing to argue that telcos, for example, need to incrementally reduce current operating costs. But that argue also hinges on a crucial assumption, namely that current revenue continues to grow on a relatively stable basis, while revenue losses from legacy products do not accelerate in a destabilizing way.

Some might argue that the risk of unexpected revenue trend deterioration is greater than most now assume. In that case, one way or the other, service providers will have to make further adjustments. That is one reason why Google hints that it might expand the Google Fiber program.