Wednesday, March 9, 2016

PC Market Still Growing in Latin America, Africa, Middle East; Ultraportables and Chromebooks

The personal computer market still is growing, despite perceptions of demise, according to researchers at ABI Research. In part, that perception is driven by the ways researchers categorize PC sales, now driven by portable units.

Also, sales growth also now is driven by buyers in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, so growth might be as visible in Asia, North America or Europe.

To be sure, 2016 shipments of laptops wil fall nearly three percent, after a dip of one percent in 2015. But “ultraportable” shipments, which fell three percent in 2015, will grow nearly 11 percent in 2016.

And Chromebooks, which some might not consider “PCs,” grew 27 percent in 2015 and will grow about 21 percent in 2016, ABI Research forecasts.

Notebook PC Segment YoY Change (%)
2015
2016
Chromebook
27.1%
21.2%
Laptop
-1.0%
-2.8%
Ultraportable
-3.2%
10.9%
Total
-0.5%
0.4%

Notebook PC Segment Shipments (Millions)
2015
2016
2021
Chromebook
6.2
7.6
11.6
Laptop
129.7
126.1
116.3
Ultraportable
27.1
30.0
41.2
Total
163.0
163.7
169.1

ABI Research predicts that ultraportable PCs will constitute more than 24 percent of total notebook PC unit volume in 2021.

Chromebooks will continue to dominate the education market in 2016, as school initiatives drive toward 1:1 student deployments with a technology device.

And though the majority of Chromebooks historically shipped in the United States, the education trend is beginning to see growth in other regions, notably Western Europe.

ABI Research predicts that Chromebooks will represent nearly seven percent of all notebook PC shipments in 2021.

In all, data suggests regional growth from the notebook PC category will stem from Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa over the next five years.

Skinny Video Bundles a Logical Response to Growiing Consumer Resistance to Price Increases

Stability of consumer spending patterns is one reason why more linear video suppliers are embracing “skinny” content bundles whose primary attribute is that they cost less.

Since linear TV now is a core “telecom” product in consumer markets, that also means consumers will evaluate their buying choices through a very sticky lens. Households and consumers tend to spend only about two to three percent of income on all communications-related products.

When one category grows--such as mobility--some other category is dropped (such as fixed network voice). If spending on high speed access or any other component grows, then something else has to give.

Ever-higher linear TV bills are no exception. Facing such trends, consumers are going to cut back, to shift spending to mobile data and fixed high speed access.

Eventually, one might argue, they also might consider spending more on mobility and less on fixed services overall, if 5G starts to offer value-price bundles that support video consumption and high speed access requirements.

That--for decades--has been a hope of many mobile executives. The fundamental reality is that consumer budgets for all communication services (and that now includes many forms of entertainment video) is rather fixed. Prices cannot rise in any category without hard choices in other areas.

Device costs also are an issue. It is not clear whether $600 or $800 smartphones come out of a “consumer electronics” or “communication services” bucket. It likely is a combination of both categories. But that also means more attention will be paid to other services to deemphasize, so the pricey smartphones can be purchased.

Though U.S. households have gradually begun spending more on communications services over the past couple of decades, between 1990 and 2008, for example, the rise was fairly slight.

Consumers boosted spending from 1.8 percent of income to about 2.3 percent of personal income. Since 2008, some studies show a further increase.

At least one study of U.K. expenditures suggests communications spending could in some cases represent 12 percent of spending, while U.S. consumer spending on communications could have increased five percent, a possible historic increase level, between 2007 and 2010.

That five percent increase represents higher spending on linear TV, mobile and fixed services. Keep in mind, that does not mean the “percent of income spent on communications,” just the increase. Note that “telephone equipment” largely represents spending on mobile phones.

In fact, if spending on mobile phones and services has grown significantly, something else has given way. Since 2007, consumer spending on mobile services (per household, average of 2.5 persons per household) has been greater than spending on fixed services, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  

By 2014, in fact, about 73 percent of all “telecom” spending per household was for mobile services.

in 2014, spending per household--including telecom and audiovisual equipment and services, amounted to about 4.4 percent of household spending. It is not immediately clear where spending for high speed access appears. If not captured by government data, then it is certainly possible that household spending on communications has reached five percent, or more, in some cases. It is hard to say for certain.

But the point is that consumer ability to buy communication services is rather finite. At whatever level you believe is current (2.5 percent to five percent per household), there will be resistance to increasing the percentage of spend much more.

That means prices cannot continue to climb, for every component service, without cutbacks, someplace.

So skinny video bundles appear an ever more likely response to consumer resistance to price hikes. Given a choice between spending less on Internet access, entertainment video, mobility or fixed voice, which priorities would you have?

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

"Wireless Substitution" for Video and High Speed Access is Coming

“Wireless substitution,” defined as customers choosing to buy mobile service as a full substitute for fixed network voice, is a well-established trend in the U.S. and other markets.

So the obvious question is whether wireless substitution could happen for other fixed network services, such as entertainment video and even high speed Internet access.

With the arrival of fifth generation networks, and some innovations in both rating and offload, that could become a commercial reality for the first time.

And that will have implications for service providers, consumers, devices and network platform choices.

Ask Verizon. “5G has the capability to be a substitute for broadband into the home with a fixed wireless solution,” said Fran Shammo, Verizon Communications EVP. “The question is can you deploy that technology and actually make money at a price that the consumer would pay?

“If you think about 5G, 1 gig into the home it is a substitute product for (fixed network) broadband,” said Shammo.

One reason that will likely be the case is that consumer preferences, network architectures, traffic offloading and new spectrum will allow mobile service providers to consider new offers never practical before.

Efficiency, and therefore mobile data costs, provide one example. “So if you think about CDMA to LTE, we got about a four to five time cost reduction,” Shammo said. “You're looking at the same magnitude, maybe even slightly higher going from LTE video delivery to 5G video delivery.”

The rest of the business model has to be proven, of course. But the main point is that 5G will allow mobile service providers to consider wireless substitution for fixed network video entertainment and high speed access as never before.

And that almost assures us that wireless will be a bigger factor in access network revenues, going forward.

Access Providers Cannot Get Away from Dumb Pipe Function

You know a market is changing when you begin to struggle with definitions. In many markets (Europe and North America), for example, it is less accurate than ever to talk about “telcos” when “cable TV companies” have so much “telecom” market share.

Likewise, it is clumsy to refer to cable TV companies that way when they actually are “telcos.”

People come up with “catchy” new phrases that capture some of the dynamics, but little of the revenue dynamics. Digital lifestyle enabler is one such term. The use of the phrase tends to connote that access providers are “evolving” beyond access (bit pipes, dumb pipes or some other similar designation) and becoming digital services providers.

That sounds good, even if it does not generally match revenue sources so well at the moment. Some of us would argue that the “dumb pipes” versus “digital services provider” debate is misplaced.

For starters, it is unlikely ever to be the case that any access provider actually earns more money from “services” or “content” or “apps” than it does from connectivity (access). And that is not necessarily a problem.  

A cable TV executive might describe the long-term strategy as a mix of services, ranging from “dumb pipe” (best effort Internet access) to Ethernet access for businesses, plus video entertainment and voice “managed services.”

In other words, both dumb pipe and services are foundations of the business model. But dumb pipe is not to be casually dismissed. In the full protocol stack, access and transport are at the bottom, apps at the top.

Access and transport are the unique roles provided by former telcos, cable TV companies, satellite broadband, metro fiber and many other types of specialized communications service providers.

An access provider cannot avoid offering access and transport without abandoning its role in the protocol stack. But neither are access providers precluded from assuming other roles.

As a cable TV exec might say, “you have to own some of what you deliver.”

That’s why all debates about “dumb pipe” or “app provider” roles essentially are wrong when they assume either one or the other roles must be dominant. The future is “both.” But access is the unique role. Any access provider that neglects the “access function” eventually will falter.

Access (dumb pipe is another word for access) is the unique role in the protocol stack. But it is unlikely to ever be the "sole" role or function.

Monday, March 7, 2016

India Mobile Data Margin Pressure is Growing

Margin pressure in the India mobile data services business already is escalating, even before Reliance Jio has launched full commercial launch of its 4G services.

Analysts at Morgan Stanley therefore have "cut our industry revenue growth forecast by three percent for fiscal years 2016 to 2018, and expect the industry revenue between fiscal 2015 and 2020 to grow at a seven percent compound annual growth rate versus eight percent previously."

As is often the pattern elsewhere, usage is growing faster than revenue . The report by Morgan Stanley said despite double-digit data volume growth, data revenues are now growing in the higher single-digits.

Sharing Will Help Fix Spectrum Scarcity Problem

India faces a variety of institutional and business barriers to more-rapid deployment of Internet access services, some of them related to business models and the cost of building networks to serve customers with average spending of about US$2 a month. But regulations, taxes and zoning arguably play a significant role.


One might argue that making lots more spectrum available, free or cheap, would dramatically change the cost side of business models. That tends not to happen in India, since the economic rent from leasing spectrum is seen as so lucrative for units of government.


Spectrum sharing might be one way to reconcile both objectives: better business models for Internet service providers; faster deployment and lower prices for consumers and yet incremental revenue for governments.


The broad movement is to free up licensed but unused spectrum in an efficient way (enabling sharing), as the traditional methods (clearing users and then relicensing) take too long and cost too much.

The reality is that most licensed spectrum is not used, most of the time. Some licensed spectrum seems never to be used at all. That is quite inefficient, at a time when useful communications spectrum is required for all manner of Internet apps.

Sample Spectrum Occupancy Report: Each band averaged over six locations. National Science Foundation: M.A.McHenry Shared Spectrum Co - Click for full sized image

Saturday, March 5, 2016

U.S. Moving Ahead on 28 GHz for Mobile Uses

Most spectrum actually does not get used, most of the time. Hence the new emphasis on sharing of existing spectrum. That takes a variety of forms.

New methods for allowing mobile networks native access to Wi-Fi, as well as sharing of other spectrum bands between licensed and commercial users, provide examples of the trend.

In other cases, sharing between commercial users is the task.

Even if the recent World Radiocommunications Conference did not allocate 28 GHz for 5G mobile use, the United States Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead to allow use of that band for mobile networks.


As with some other bands of spectrum, there are sharing and interference protection issues, as satellite operators use portions of the 28 GHz band. Methods for enabling sharing of other bands, including 5 GHz (mobile and Wi-Fi) and 3.5 GHz (licensed and commercial users) also are being developed.


The broad movement is to free up licensed but unused spectrum in an efficient way (enabling sharing), as the traditional methods (clearing users and then relicensing) take too long and cost too much.

Friday, March 4, 2016

Google Fiber Vdeo Take Rates Modest, So Far

Not that it matters too much at the moment, but Google Fiber does not seem to be getting many video subscribers, according to Craig Moffett, MoffettNathanson analyst. The primary impact is to limit Google Fiber revenue per account, as high speed access only tends to generate about $70 a month, where video plus Internet tends to generate $130 a month gross revenue.


Over the long term, that difference in average revenue per account could be quite important, for obvious reasons: getting nearly double the revenue per account generally matters quite a lot for any ISP or triple play provider.


According to Moffett, Google Fiber ended 2015 with about 53,000 video subs.


At the end of 2014, Google Fiber had 12,659 video subscribers.


In Google Fiber’s most-mature market, Kansas City, Kan., video adoption is about 23 percent, a reasonable enough rate of adoption.


In Kansas City, Mo., video adoption is about 17 percent.


In Provo, Utah, a newer market, Google Fiber has achieved eight percent.


More important, arguably, is high speed access adoption, which one suspects is quite a lot higher than video adoption. In 2014, Google Fiber Internet access adoption had hit levels as high as 75 percent, for example.

Another survey showed 20 percent adoption after a year’s worth of marketing, figures that compare well with Verizon’s take rates for FiOS after a year’s worth of marketing. On that glide path, it would be reasonable to estimate that, over a few years, Google Fiber would get 30 percent to 40 percent adoption. Some might argue Google Fiber could do even better than that.  

CenturyLink to Launch Own Video Streaming Service

CenturyLink is testing it own streaming video service in four markets. As planned, the service will allow CenturyLink to expand the number of locations within its fixed network footprint where it can offer entertainment TV services.

At the moment, Prism TV, the CenturyLink linear video service, has limited reach. CenturyLink Prism TV passed 3.2 million homes in 2015.

Prism Stream will work on high speed Internet access lines supporting just 10 Mbps, instead of the 25 Mbps otherwise required for Prism TV.

CenturyLink provides high speed access to well in excess of six million homes across its footprint, and passes more than 22.2 million homes in total.

Prism Stream might mean an additional 12 percent of potential buyers will be able to use Prism Stream, where only about 7.6 percent can buy Prism TV, at least according to 2014 statistics.

CenturyLink Download Speed
Percent of People Able to Buy
Down >768k Up >200k
15.6%
Down >3M Up >768k
14.5%
Download > 768k
15.6%
Download > 1.5M
15.4%
Download > 3M
14.6%
Download > 6M
13.5%
Download > 10M
12.3%
Download > 25M
7.6%
Download > 50M
0.1%
Download > 100M
0.1%
Download > 1G
0.1%

source: Broadband Map

Will Netherlands Businesses See Higher Prices After Ziggo-Vodafone Merger?

The Netherlands communications market will see an interesting real-world test of what happens when a market consolidates, particularly in the areas of prices for business services and churn rates, as Viggo and Vodafone merger their Netherlands operations.


Coursr Research, for example, predicts prices will rise as a direct result of the combination, as competition lessens.


Duopolies, though, have not always--perhaps almost never in the Internet era, lead to that result, for voice or data communications in the business segment, where prices have fallen for decades.


To be sure, prices often fall in hyper-competitive markets as well, for a time. When there are too many competitors, though, that often becomes unsustainable, and the number of firms that can operate in the market long term will fall.


The general expectation is that prices rise, when such consolidation happens. The issue is whether that actually happens. There still is evidence that even a duopoly can produce pro-consumer results (lower prices, better services, better service). The current fixed network market in the United States provides one example.

At least in terms of Netherlands fixed network high speed access, the market is starting to look like a duopoly.
source: Telecompaper

Whether that also is true in the mobile market is an outstanding issue. In most markets, there are three to four leading providers, and regulators and policy advocates disagree about the minimum number of providers to produce effective competition.


The point is that there is not clear evidence even a fixed network duopoly necessarily produces higher prices and fewer other benefits, compared to a more-competitive market.


Also, increasingly, even the notion that a duopoly exists in the U.S. market is being challenged by Google Fiber, other independent Internet service providers and municipal operations of various types.


In a growing number of U.S. markets, there are two or even three providers of 1 Gbps Internet access. How far that can continue, and whether it is sustainable, is the issue.


The point, though, is that we cannot automatically conclude that a smaller number of providers in any market necessarily leads to higher prices for business or consumer customers. With the exception of content services, prices for data and voice have tended to fall, even in U.S. consumer “duopoly” markets.


Business services arguably have not been a duopoly for some time, as most U.S. markets have multiple providers of business data access and voice, far exceeding two providers in number, and at least a handful that are facilities based.


A combination of forces, ranging from new competitors to Moore’s Law (cheaper processing and storage), better radio technology, better air interfaces and efficient modulation techniques, optical fiber, new architectures, new spectrum and even regulation (allowing network builds in only some areas of a city) have combined to increase capacity and lower price-per-bit metrics.


Nominal price increases, where they have occurred, have to be seen in the context of customers buying services that are faster and offer more capacity, or provide unlimited domestic calling or messaging, for a flat fee. Even when customers spend more for some services, the quality and quantity of usage has changed dramatically.


Also, though one might expect quite a lot more customer churn in the wake of such a merger, where the new entity has greater ability to bundle a wider range of services (fixed and mobile), a
survey of 343 business customers by Coursr Research seems to be inconclusive on that score.


Only about one percent of respondents who do not use Vodafone or Ziggo say they will leave their current providers as a result of the merger. About five percent of respondents who use neither Ziggo nor Vodafone suggested they might switch to either Ziggo or Vodafone for data or mobile services.


With the caveat that people often do not behave as they say they will, bundling could work. Some 21 percent of Ziggo customers suggested they would add Vodafone mobile services, while 17 percent of Vodafone mobile customers suggested they might add Ziggo data communications.



In any given year, in the U.S. market, perhaps 12 percent to 18 percent of customers actually change providers, arguably fewer in the business segment, however.


On the other hand, Coursr data also suggests the amount of definite churn would initially be quite low.


Very few would leave their current provider if the combined operation enters the market -- none at all out of Vodafone's business customer base, and just 3 per cent of Ziggo's customers. The joint venture would probably also pick up customers from other players such as T-Mobile and Tele2.


After the merger of Ziggo and Vodafone, the new firm will have a much-stronger position in the customer segment of businesses with 50 to 500 customers or more employees, at least in terms of installed base.


The installed base of customers in the communications market in the Netherlands shows strong KPN presence, among organizations of every size.




In the data services market, the combined Ziggo and Vodafone will be even stronger with small business customers, but with less installed base in the large enterprise market.


The issue is whether the new combination actually will lead to higher prices for business voice and data. Some think it will do so. Classic economic thinking would suggest it could, or even should do so.


But some real-world evidence suggests even a duopoly, and that will not exist in the Netherlands market, can produce competitive market benefits for buyers.


The new combined Ziggo and Vodafone arguably will have a stronger position where it comes to fixed network business data services.




The new entity will be most competitive in the mobile segment of the business.

"Lean Back" and "Lean Forward" Differences Might Always Condition VR or Metaverse Adoption

By now, it is hard to argue against the idea that the commercial adoption of “ metaverse ” and “ virtual reality ” for consumer media was in...