What is the Point of "Gigabit" Access Experiments?

You might argue that major cycles of investment in communications networks happen when the investment climate and government policy line up. Historically, that was the reason for grants of monopoly or scarcity of spectrum availability.

But you might also argue that “supply” innovations now are matched, in an Internet era, by efforts to change the demand drivers.

Google Fiber is trying to do a bit of both supply and demand innovation. It always has been unlikely that Google Fiber would discover some disruptive new cost advantage related to network construction costs.

Some argue that municipal inducements are important, but a reasonable observer might argue that has only minor impact on network costs. As always, “digging holes and hanging cable” is where most of the cost lies.

Nor does it seem Google has found any breakthrough in consumer premises equipment costs. A consumer buying broadband access, video and DVR service requires three boxes, plus a tablet, for example.

But Google is trying to change the breakeven point for operating costs, applying something that is analogous to an “Internet” model for marketing and customer support, for example. In essence, Google Fiber is an attempt to illustrate that a major ISP could operate at far lower costs than traditionally has been thought possible.

More importantly, Google Fiber is an attempt to influence demand drivers, by creating new applications and behaviors built on the assumption of ubiquitous gigabit access.

In that same way, the Federal Communications Commission wants to encourage creation of gigabit cities in every U.S. state, by 2015. That goal is unlikely to be reached, as even if construction started right away, full new networks could not be built within two years.

In truth, the FCC’s goal is better described as “gigabit communities,” built around “anchor institutions,” not full “cities.” The general idea is that doing so is the best way to foster the creation of new applications that presume ubiquitous  gigabit communications.

Blair Levin, Gig.U executive director,  points out that changes in regulatory policy historically have lead to changes in market dynamics, by changing the investment climate and business model in a positive direction.

The idea is that more investment happens when capital or operating expenses are lowered, when the riskiness of investment is reduced or when revenue opportunities are enhanced.

Changes in regulatory policy also can change the business case by altering the threat of competitive losses for existing contestants, forcing them to invest in response.

The whole point of Google Fiber, the “Gigabit Cities” initiative and Gig.U are to try and change the math in a positive direction (lower cost, higher revenue) while changing the competitive climate (force incumbents to invest faster)

Are telcos playing “catch up” in the race to keep providing better high speed Internet access? More generally, with the exception of what might be done by fiber to home networks, are other contestants able to keep up with cable?

You might well argue that most contenders are not physically able to keep pace, the exception being a fiber network, such as operated by Google Fiber in Kansas City, Mo. and Kansas City, Kan.

For some contestants, the issue is capital. For others the key blockage is spectrum, and in some cases it is network architecture.

Sector	Ecosystem change	CapEx	OpEx	Risk	Revenue	Competitive Losses
Telco	Grant of monopoly			Lower	Raise
Cable	Grant of monopoly, pole attachment law, compulsory broadcast license			Lower	Raise
Rural areas	USF	Lower	Lower
Wireless	Limited # of licenses			Lower
DBS	Limited # of licenses, program access			Lower	Raise
Broadband upgrade	Deregulation, two wire policy				Raise	Raise
Wireless upgrade	More licenses, lowered TAC, oversight of siting authority		Lower		Raise	Raise
Broadcast television to digital	Provide 2nd channel for transmission of content	Lower		Lower	Raise

Softbank Sprint Acquisition Conditions are Likely

Softbank's deal to acquire most of Sprint likely will be approved, but with some conditions, most observers might agree. Among those conditions notification requirements if Sprint plans to buy equipment from Chinese suppliers such as Huawei. 

The U.S. government likely would not bar purchases, but would require notification if Sprint planned to buy such equipment for the core of its network. Precisely how that would work is a bit unclear, since government authorities would have no power to block such purchases.

But presumably the pressure not to so so would effectively restrain Sprint, which would not want to risk the ire of regulators or the possibility of losing out on government contracts.

There are other more subtle possible effects, should a technology oversight clause be attached as a condition for approval of the deal. Other suppliers using Huawei products might likewise reconsider whether that is necessary and useful.

Santa Clara Power Company Launches Free Public Wi-Fi

Free outdoor Wi-Fi (1 Mbps downstream speeds) in the City of Santa Clara is being launched by Silicon Valley Power, the city’s municipal power company, as part of its SVP MeterConnect program.

Santa Clara says it is the first city in the country to provide free outdoor Wi-Fi access for an entire community as part of an advanced electric meter upgrade program that uses wireless technology to read meters.

SVP expects over 5,000 connections a day on the free  public network.

As always is the case for a community broadband network, some sustainable way of generating the resources to keep providing the service is key. In this case, the resource model is the sale of electrical power to customers in Santa Clara.

That commercial revenue stream supports the operating and capital costs associated with the meter reading program, which in turn provides the capacity for the outdoor public Wi-Fi network.

When advanced meters are installed at residences starting late in 2013, electricity and water usage information will be highly encrypted and sent using the same wireless network that provides the public Wi-Fi.

The SVP MeterConnect network reserves a separate channel for the free, public, and unencrypted outdoor Internet service.

The network seems intentionally designed not to compete with commercial ISP operations. the network is not designed to support indoor coverage, so it really is not going to be a substitute for other commercial ISP services.

Also, the 1 Mbps (shared) network is not going to offer the sort of bandwidth most users these days will find too useful, as a primary connection.

More U.S. Mobile Spectrum Coming in September 2014?

The Federal Communications Commission has sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) saying the commission plans to commence the auction of licenses in the 1.695 – 1.71 GHz and 1.755 GHz to 1.78 GHz bands as early as September 2014.

The FCC had earlier auctioned off adjacent portions of the Advanced Wireless Services band.

Those moves are part of a larger FCC effort to free up licensed and unlicensed spectrum for mobile and fixed broadband use, and appears to be considered an important part of licensing for

the 2.155 GHz to 2.18 GHz band.

As some propose, the 2.155 GHz to 2.18 GHz band could be paired with the 1.755 GHz to 1.78 GHz band.

This federal band is part of a larger federal band that NTIA' s Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) is studying for shared use between federal and commercial users.

Tablets Lead Global Growth of all "Smart and Connected Devices"

It would clearly be rational to argue that the smart phone is going to be the most ubiquitous device used to access the Internet, in most emerging markets. But  tablet importance is going to grow, especially if smart phone communications are grafted onto a greater number of tablet models.

Smart connected device volume in emerging markets grew by 41.3 percent in 2012 with the tablet volume growing by 111.3 percent and smart phone volume by 69.7 percent year over- year.

In mature markets, shipments of smart connected devices grew by 15.6 percent, with a “huge plunge in the PC market,” says IDC.  

By the end of year 2017, IDC predicts that the tablet and smart phone markets will have huge growth in the emerging markets.

In emerging markets, tablet unit shipments are expected to increase by 300 percent, while smart phone unit shipments are expected to double.

Portable PCs, on the other hand will show a moderate single-digit growth while desktop PCs are expected to consistently decline year over year with almost no growth in 2017.

"In emerging markets, consumer spending typically starts with mobile phones and, in many cases, moves to tablets before PCs," says Megha Saini, IDC research analyst.

Tablet shipments grew 78.4 percent year-over-year growth in 2012, representing 128 million devices, and driving global shipments of “smart connected devices,” according to International Data Corp.

IDC expects that tablet shipments will surpass desktop PCs in 2013 and exceed portable PC sales in 2014.

That could make the tablet the crucial computing device for fixed broadband services and ISPs selling fixed broadband services.

Smart Connected Device Year-over-Year Growth by Region and Product Category, 2012-2017

Region	Product Category	2012	2013*	2017*
Mature Market	Desktop PC	-4.8%	-5.5%	-2.9%
Mature Market	Portable PC	-8.1%	-3.1%	-1.4%
Mature Market	Tablet	62.8%	41.4%	8.3%
Mature Market	Smartphone	20.6%	15.1%	4.6%
Total Market		15.6%	13.8%	4.2%
Emerging Markets	Desktop PC	-3.8%	-3.5%	0%
Emerging Markets	Portable PC	-0.8%	4.1%	7.1%
Emerging Markets	Tablet	111.3%	60.7%	13.4%
Emerging Markets	Smartphone	69.7%	35.1%	12.2%
Total Market		41.3%	26.6%	10.9%
Worldwide	Desktop PC	-4.1%	-4.3%	-1.0%
Worldwide	Portable PC	-3.4%	0.9%	3.7%
Worldwide	Tablet	78.4%	48.7%	10.6%
Worldwide	Smartphone	46.1%	27.2%	9.8%
Total Market		29.1%	21.2%	8.5%

Source: IDC

* Forecast estimates.

Smart Connected Device Market by Product Category, Shipments, Market Share, 2012-1016 (units in millions)

Product Category	2012 Unit Shipments	2012 Market Share	2017 Unit Shipments*	2017 Market Share*	2012—2017 Growth*
Desktop PC	148.4	12.4%	141.0	6.0%	-5.0%
Portable PC	202.0	16.8%	240.9	11.0%	19.3%
Tablet	128.3	10.7%	352.3	16%	174.5%
Smartphone	722.4	60.1%	1,516	67%	109.9%
Total	1,201.1	100.0%	2,250.3	100.0%	87.3%

Source: IDC

* Forecast estimates.

Small Cell Backhaul: Fixed or Wireless?

While some people forecast that as many as 80 percent or 90 percent of outdoor small cells will be connected by wireless backhaul, Maravedis-Rethink believes mobile backhaul will mirror today’s pattern, where 55 percent is wireless and 45 percent uses a fiber connection.

“Operators will use fiber wherever possible and install short range wireless in the gaps,” according to Esteban Monturus, Maravedis-Rethink backhaul practice head. 

Wireless backhaul for small cells is forecast to grow rapidly until about 2013, according to Mobile Experts In 2016, for example, Mobile Experts expects sales of about $1.5 billion worth of small cell gear for wireless backhaul, for example.

But patterns likely will differ from country to country.Others think wireless will be more important. 

Where it comes to small mobile cell sites, which will, by definition, cover small areas primarily in high-traffic areas, backhaul costs will have to scale to match the large number of sites, and the relatively small number of customers served at any single site.

  So recurring backhaul costs are a huge issue. And the need for locating small cells in highly specific locations, which might not have easy direct line of sight, will tend to make non line of sight systems important.

Here's a great summary of mobile backhaul equipment.suppliers who can support small cells.

Internet Use is Ubiquitous, for People Up to Age 49

If you have followed adoption trends for consumer products ranging from subscription video to use of mobile phones, texting or social media, you know that adoption skews by age. 

For the older forms of media and communications, what happens over time is that the behaviors of the younger age groups become the behaviors of the total population. That is happening with use of the Internet as well.

The only surprise might be the small percentage of people who claim not to use the Internet. 

Intel Internet Video Service Making Progress?

Intel has been working on an Internet competitor to cable, satellite and telco TV that it had wanted to launch in 2012. As you would guess, Intel has had to work harder than expected to line up key programmers for a distribution strategy that competes with its present distributors (cable operators, telcos and satellite video suppliers such as DirecTV and Dish Network). 

Ignoring for the moment the current "average" amount of bandwidth U.S. consumers are able to obtain, the venture hinges on the ability to offer the same sorts of content cable TV, telco TV and satellite TV service providers offer. 


In that regard, Intel Corp. is "making progress" in talks with Time Warner, NBC Universal and Viacom to obtain TV shows and films for its online video service.

Intel reportedly is about to begin negotiations with News Corp. as well. Apparently, the talks with Disney and CBS are less well developed. 


Intel hopes to create a more flexible service, that might give subscribers more choices over the channels they receive. Just how much change programmers might agree to support is the question. 

There has been speculation that Intel could offer a streamlined selection of standard channels at a lower price, with or without the ability to view some content "on demand." Others have said a key draw would be the ability for consumers to have some ability to buy somewhat customized packages of service.

Many observers have argued that programmers will be quite careful about upsetting relationships with their present distributors. That would imply a very limited ability for Intel to offer too much customization of which channels or programs consumers could buy. 

On the other hand, it would precisely be just such customization that could provide huge incentives for consumers to consider an Internet delivery service. 

Faster Long Haul Communications?

Though neither technology is not commercially viable, two different techniques could speed up long distance communications and slice double-digit milliseconds off communications across some routes.

By getting optical signal propagation speed up to 99.7 percent of the speed of light, from the current 70 percent of light-speed, the best-case trip from Australia to the US would be cut from about 43 milliseconds to about 30 milliseconds, ignoring router hops and optical signal regeneration.

A research team from the University of Southampton in England achieved the faster speeds by taking the glass out of the glass fiber and creating a "hollow-core photonic-bandgap fiber."

The methods used by the researchers result in loss of 3.5 decibels per km, loss too high for undersea routes, for example.

Separately, some speculate that neutrinos could be used to send communications “through the earth,” achieving lower latency communications because the routes would be shorter than any cable route on the surface of the earth.

A signal sent between London and Sydney would shave abou 44 milliseconds off the fastest current alternative, for example.

There is one major problem, that being the need for a particle accelerator at each end, costing perhaps $1 billion each.

T-Mobile USA Goes to "No Contract" Pricing

T-Mobile USA has formally introduced its “no-contract” approach to mobile service pricing. T-Mobile USA says its “bold” approach means “T-Mobile is canceling its membership in the out-of-touch wireless club,” said John Legere, president and CEO of T-Mobile USA. “This is an industry filled with ridiculously confusing contracts, limits on how much data you can use or when you can upgrade, and monthly bills that make little sense.”

T-Mobile USA now says it will change all of that. Skeptics might disagree.

Sprint has emphasized “simplicity” for years. And one might argue that Verizon Wireless “Share  Everything” and AT&T “Mobile Share” use the same simplifying principles as T-Mobile USA’s “new” “Simple Choice” plans.

“Simple Choice asks customers two basic questions: How many lines do you need, and how much high-speed data would you like?” T-Mobile USA says. But some would point out that is precisely how the Mobile Share an Share Everything plans work, as well.

Nor is the shift away from contracts as dramatic as it might sound, for end users who really do not want to pay full retail price for their new devices.

T-Mobile USA is hedging its bets, by offering installment plans that have the advantage of allowing T-Mobile USA to post lower recurring costs of service for its usage plans, since the installment charges are “separate.”

Will consumers really care if the out of pocket monthly payments for T-Mobile USA service are marginally lower, in the case of services without subsidies but with an installment plan? In other words, will most consumers actually wind up saving money on a recurring, out of pocket basis?

If one assumes most consumers still are going to opt for device installment plans rather than buying their devices outright, the savings are relatively slight, on a recurring basis, for purchases involving high-end devices, though some could save money.

T-Mobile USA has a $60-a-month 2.5 gigabyte data plan is more than $300 cheaper over two years than an AT&T plan that offers 3 gigabytes and 450 minutes of talk time with the same device. For a user who opts for the installment plan, that works out to about $12.50 a month lower bills than for the rival AT&T plan.

There is an argument that T-Mobile USA plans will save more, compared to service from Verizon Wireless. A user buying that same T-Mobile USA plan, and using the installment plan, would save perhaps $20.83 a month, over two years, compared to a single-user Verizon Wireless plan with 2 gigabytes of data (though the Verizon Wireless plan also would offer unlimited talking and text messaging.

The point is that the actual differences in end user behavior, or the potential savings, might be more subtle than T-Mobile USA seems to suggest will be the case.

Wi-Fi Networks Change "Big Screen" Smart Phone Behavior

SCREEN SIZE VS DATA USE OVER A WI-FI CONNECTION

As screen sizes get bigger, people consume considerably more data, at least when connected using a Wi-Fi network, a study by OpenSignal suggests.The study also suggests that when connected using the mobile network, screen size actually does not have much impact on the amount of data consumed.

For example, data use over Wi-Fi doubles from a device with a six inches square surface area screen (like a Galaxy Ace) to a device with a nine inches square screen (like a Galaxy SIII).

On the other hand, there is only a weak correlation between screen size and data use over a mobile network connection. What this suggests it that people broadly use their mobile phones in the same way when on the move. Screen size does not change behavior.

Behavior does seem to change when larger screen devices have access to a Wi-Fi connection.  As screen sizes get bigger, people consume considerably more data.