Is Mobile A Substitute for Wi-Fi?

For decades, observers have wondered and speculated about whether Wi-Fi could be a substitute for mobile data access.

Now we might have to ask the reverse question: under what conditions is mobile access a functional substitute for Wi-Fi?

The new question comes as all four leading U.S. mobile operators now offer unlimited usage plans. To be sure, none of the plans is “truly” unlimited. After a certain amount of usage, users will find themselves throttled, in terms of top speed. The other push might come with 5G.

Cisco, in fact, already believes 5G usage will reverse recent trends, and see mobile access growing at the expense of Wi-Fi. Tariffs likely will prove to be the driver. At suitable pricing levels, users simply will not have incentives to use Wi-Fi for offload.

Also, not every account needs, nor will every consumer benefit from, unlimited access. For many, though, the new unlimited feature might mean less value for Wi-Fi offloading. In India, for example, new 4G networks now mean mobile is faster than Wi-Fi.

Still, more Wi-Fi spectrum is coming. In the U.S. market, the Federal Communications Commission, for example,  is releasing about 7 GHz of new unlicensed spectrum  for use.

Ofcom, the United Kingdom communications regulator, has decided to authorize an additional 125 MHz of capacity for Wi-Fi  in the 5-GHz band (5725 GHz to 5850 GHz). That is the first step in what might be additional actions, including allowing Wi-Fi use in the 5850-MHz to 5925 MHz band now used to support mobile operations.

The additional spectrum will allow for wider channels, which should improve bandwidth efficiency and support higher speeds. The number of 80 MHz channels will increase from four to six. Three additional 40 MHz channels and six additional 20 MHz channels would also be available.

Ofcom also says itg could open up spectrum for Wi-Fi at 5350-MHz to 5470-MHz band as well.  

source: Ofcom

Ironically, moves to add more Wi-Fi spectrum in the millimeter wave bands in the U.S. market are happening at the same time that all four leading U.S. mobile service providers now are offering unlimited use plans. In principle, that means some customers might no longer have an incentive to switch access to Wi-Fi, since doing so does not save money or improve user experience (Wi-Fi tends to be slower than 4G).   

Telco Revenue Growth: GDP-Plus or GDP-Minus?

Nobody can yet tell how well big new revenue streams might develop on 5G platforms, from internet of things apps running over those networks or from telco movement into the applications space. But it is not incorrect to forecast dire financial repercussions for most access providers if such big new sources are not identified, then created and owned. Avoiding dumb pipe status rightly is the chief strategic problem for most telcos.  

As analysts at STL Partners (Telco 2.0 Research) note, between 2009 and 2016, though revenues grew at 68 public telcos, growth rates now are close to zero. Others, such as J.P. Morgan Chase analyst James Sullivan, say telco revenue growth now happens at a slower rate than gross domestic product growth, an insight that tracks the observed linear change rate quite well.

Also, 5G might well intensify the pressure, in large part because the network architecture will require lots of small cells (creating a denser network with more backhaul), though possibly less spending on spectrum (as unlicensed and more-affordable shared spectrum is used, and as huge blocks of lower-cost millimeter wave capacity is licensed).

The basic problem some see is that usage, revenue and infrastructure investment are non-linear, compared to the voice era. Back then, higher usage meant higher revenue, with incremental investment in network resources. In the internet era, and especially so in the coming gigabit era of the internet, usage skyrockets, while revenue grows at slower and non-linear rates, while network investment grows disproportionately as well.

Some might also note that supply will exceed demand in some cases, putting pressure on business models.

The fundamental problem, one might argue, is that no matter how fast, or how cheap internet access gets, revenues do not necessarily grow to match usage. That has been an issue for a couple of decades already, so there is little reason to believe matters will change.

Many argue that virtualized networks, able to provide bandwidth on demand, or network features on demand, will help. That might well be true. Still, some will argue, revenues beyond “access” must be created, to avoid a “death spiral” based on “skinny margin” or “no margin” access services.

68 major telecoms groups – aggregate revenue, 2009-2016

source: Telco 2.0 Research  

No, 5G Will Not the "Best" Network for Every Use Case

We should not be surprised when, inevitably, there are criticisms of 5G networks because 5G fails to be a single network that supports every application and service, equally well. In fact, no single network ever has done so. The telegraph network did not support voice. The voice network did not support video or data communications.

Even a hundred years ago, when the only application was analog voice, the fixed network did not work well in rural areas, for example.

By the 1960s and 1970s, satellite networks began to deliver long distance voice traffic, especially in isolated and remote areas. As additional applications created new markets, networks proliferated.

Cable TV, satellite TV, mobile networks, specialized business data networks (X.25, internet protocol, ISDN, SONET, ATM, frame relay) always have co-existed with the broad consumer voice networks.

That 5G “does not do everything,” for every geography, customer, application, device or business model should be a given. No network ever has done so.

Nor, by design, is 5G expected to do everything, everywhere, at lowest cost and highest efficiency. By design, 5G will embrace a network of networks approach, virtualizing access in many ways, for example.

But 5G also will use new frequencies (millimeter wave) that require small cells, which also means 5G will not--everywhere--be a replacement for 4G. Millimeter waves are the antithesis of low-band (frequencies at 800 MHz and lower).

Since 5G also is expected to underpin new machine-to-machine communications, we already see the rise of specialized narrowband networks designed to support low-bandwidth communications that are bursty and need to travel longish distances, without consuming much power.

Already, it seems, 5G is not the best way to support many M2M apps and devices (though 5G architects are working on those problems). So, no, 5G is not a panacea for every communications geography, customer or application. No, it will not be the single network to do everything. No network can do so.

On the other hand, 5G might be the “best network” approach for some important new apps and revenue sources, in some places. Some of those requirements apply to people, some to machines. Because 5G uses assets on a virtualized basis (access and core), it might be the “best” approach for any number of apps and use cases, even when it is not the “5G” access network doing the work, but some other wireless, mobile or fixed platform.

In 5G Era, Will Value of Mobile, Fixed Networks Change?

Almost nothing about 5G is completely certain; especially the new business models, revenue sources and cost structures that might emerge. For several decades, revenue and customer growth has been the province of mobile operators. But 5G creates new demands for radio backhaul and radio density (small cells), suggesting a boost in value for owners of fixed network infrastructure.

At the same time, more value will accrue to fixed networks that are efficient about backhaul: the lowest-cost provider wins, in other words. And, ironically, for the first time in a couple decades, owners of multiple or “integrated” platforms (mobile and fixed) might fare better than “mobile-only” or “fixed-only” contestants.

A simplistic phrase describing the shift is “the fundamental value of a fixed network is backhaul.” It’s a simplification, but a useful concept. Backhaul is the biggest, or among the biggest, operating costs for many mobile operators, somewhere in the “25 percent of total operating cost” range, typically.  In some cases, backhaul might represent 30 percent of operating costs, for mobile operators who do not own fixed network assets.

The move to small cells is going to increase the number of backhaul sites by an order of magnitude or more, so any retail provider with the ability to attack that cost will have an advantage. That is why cable TV operators are so optimistic about the value of their networks, which over the past few decades have shown an ability to deploy lots of bandwidth at lower cost than telcos have been able to accomplish.

If you think about Comcast’s “homespots,” they essentially function as small cell sites, able to support mobile connections and data offload to the fixed network. The “fiber deep” deployments required to support consumer internet access also will allow cable operators to leverage those assets to support small cell backhaul, either for “own use” or as a wholesale connectivity product for third parties.

So there will be tighter integration between fixed and mobile networks in the 5G and coming eras, as dense radio networks (wireless fixed and mobile) require huge numbers of high-capacity fixed links.

That sort of thinking is behind Verizon’s “One Fiber” strategy, which aims to leverage a single optical fiber transport and distribution network to support a range of services and customers, from residential broadband to business data services to small cell backhaul.

So one might predict that, in a growing number of cases, financial returns for “integrated” service providers will exceed returns for mobile-only or fixed-only operators, once the 5G era has begun.

We might already see some glimmers of that, as some analysts note that financial performance by integrated operators, compared to mobile-only operators, has oscillated.

From 1998 to 2011, mobile-only operators in emerging markets, especially, outperformed integrated operators in developed markets, according to J.P. Morgan equity analyst James Sullivan. From 2012 to about 2016, developed market integrated operators performed better. But Sullivan thinks the emerging market mobile segment is improving as consolidation trends take hold.

What remains to be seen are developments in developed markets, where the 5G era will value backhaul assets. Also, fixed network capabilities might improve with new fixed wireless business models.

Artificial Intelligence is Going Mainstream

Artificial intelligence used to be a “science project,” but AI increasingly is becoming a practical tool for home appliances and customer service apps, among others. That said, the industry selling AI software and services remains a small one.

Dave Schubmehl, research director at IDC, calculates that sales for all companies selling cognitive software platforms--excluding companies like Google and Facebook, which do research for their own use--added up to $1 billion in 2015.

He predicts that by 2020 that number will exceed $10 billion. USAA, the insurance provider, has been testing ways to use AI to fine-tune its detection of identity theft, for example. USAA also is looking at ways to use AI to improve customer service.

Using AI technology built by Saffron, a division of Intel, USAA has found it can match broad patterns of customer behavior to that of specific members, and 88 percent of the time it can correctly predict things like how certain people might next contact USAA and what products they will be looking for when they do. Without the AI, USAA’s systems were guessing right 50 percent of the time.

With ABI Research forecasting more than 120 million voice-enabled devices will ship annually by 2021, voice control, which combines speech recognition and natural language processing, is quickly becoming the key user interface within the smart home.

AI-driven customer service applications also are becoming common.

IoT Security, Not Market Structure, Likely to be Regulator Concern

Though policymakers now debate the best market structure for mobility suppliers (are two, three or four suppliers necessary to support robust investment, innovation and consumer benefit?), it seems unlikely they will have similar quandaries about coming special-purpose IoT networks.

For starters, there is no “consumer interest” to weigh, as IoT networks will be about machine-to-machine applications, not human communications. There are potential economic angles, but not the traditional “consumer welfare” concerns.

In other words, market structure and standards are likely to be “market driven,” not created by standards bodies, as will be the case for 5G. That is not to deny some big issues.

Cyber-security is likely to become a huge concern, though security likewise is not the sort of issue traditional regulation is best suited to handle. So to the extent regulation becomes an issue, it is unlikely to concern market structure, but rather security requirements for devices and services.

Will Dish Network's NB-IoT Network Actually be Built?

When a wave of consolidation has finished in the U.S. mobile market, it is unclear where some assets--Sprint, T-Mobile US, Dish Network--will reside. In the case of Dish Network, it is unclear whether the firm remains independent (probably not), and what use will be made of its mobile spectrum.

Though there has been speculation that its lower-band spectrum eventually would augment another carrier's 4G mobile operations, it is perhaps possible that the assets will provide an overlay IoT capability as well. Much hinges on what happens over the next several months to a year.

Without much doubt, whatever asset changes occur will happen long before the stated Dish plan is completed. So it is possible the spectrum assets wind up, as expected, as part of another carrier's 4G spectrum resources, and the NB-IoT network is not built, at all. On the other hand, it might take three years for Dish to build such a network, so it has to begin some amount of work soon, to ensure any potential buyer the spectrum assets are viable, if Dish--or its spectrum--are not acquired in 2017.

So even as Dish Network is raising $1 billion in a bond sale, to build a narrowband Long Term Evolution (NB-LTE) network, it is not clear that actually will happen.

Dish says it use its spectrum licenses in the AWS-4 Band and Lower 700 MHz E Block to build a “5G-capable network,” focused on internet of things (“IoT”) apps and services, and expects to have a network built, covering 70 percent of the U.S. population, by March 2020.

Such a network essentially is a 4G narrowband network in a class with other low power, wide area (LPWA) networks designed to support sensor communications, not human users. NB-LTE is a “5G” network in the sense that it aims to support machine-to-machine communications, not in the sense of being part of the formal 5G standard, as such.

That has cost and performance implications. NB-LTE is optimized for low bandwidth communications (250 kbps downlink, 20 kbps uplink).

That helps clarify a key part of Dish Network’s wireless strategy, which is to avoid losing rights to its spectrum because it has not made meaningful progress towards building an actual network. It also is reasonable to assume that building an LPWA network will cost far less than building a full 4G or 5G network, so Dish keeps its asset safe, while spending less money to do so.

According to Federal Communications Commission rules, Dish has to activate a network with 40 percent signal coverage, using the  700 MHz licenses it purchased in 2008 (a deadline it will miss), or, alternatively,  reach a 70 percent buildout by March 2020. That latter target is what Dish now will have to meet. Similar requirements are in place for other spectrum Dish has rights to use.

By focusing on NB-LTE, Dish can claim it is building a network that does not compete head to head with the LTE networks operated by the other big mobile service providers, as NB-LTE aims to support machine-to-machine devices, not human end users.

Much still remains to be established. Dish has no special competence in M2M services and industries, and no operational experience with mobile services. It likely would need a partner to both build and provide retail services. Beyond that, the market size for M2M services is unproven, if considered the next wave in mobile revenues and Dish’s ability to gain enough market share also is unknown, given competition from several would-be nationwide IoT networks and IoT efforts by the other four major U.S. mobile service providers.

As always is the case when new platforms emerge, existing platforms and capabilities, as well as forthcoming technologies and features, are labeled in a way that makes them part of the future. That is the case with NB-LTE, which formally is a 4G standard.

On the other hand, the network’s stated purpose and ultimate use will be for LPWA devices, a class of applications considered the hallmark of coming 5G business models.

Why 5G Success Will be Uneven

Some fundamental principles of telco and access provider business strategy in the internet era have been quite constant. As "access" has been separated from "applications," value has shifted towards app providers, and away from access providers.

Revenue has tended to follow value. So access providers have tried to increase the value of their access services, while separately trying to create new roles, on occasion, at the app layer. Success has been mixed, but that is not a failure of the strategy, only of the execution. \

History already shows that application businesses are built on access, so if any participant in the content or apps business wants to supply more value, that tends to involve innovation and participation at the app layer of the business, rather than the lower layers.

That is why, to a greater degree than has been the case in the past, 5G success will be uneven: offering bigger potential financial rewards to the bigger service providers and possibly even some financial distress for smaller operators.

The reason is that smaller operators will be able to monetize access services, while the larger operators might (should) be able to leverage applications and services built on 5G connectivity.

That prediction, in turn, is simply an extrapolation from current trends, where the value generated by applications such as video streaming or mobile apps is disproportionately captured by application providers, instead of telcos, mobile operators or internet service providers.

That trend, in turn, is a reflection of earlier trends which shifted value from carrier voice and messaging to over-the-top alternatives. In other words, we should not expect that, in the 5G era, access providers will supply much of the value of any IoT applications and services, beyond access. This will be particularly true for smaller operators, in smaller markets, who do not have the scale to participate as application providers.

The fears access providers have about “becoming dumb pipes” is well warranted: value increasingly is being created and captured by OTT app providers.

“One of the most important politicians in the EU told me that it looks like 5G will drive tremendous growth in mobile companies' revenue, and he could not understand the complaints from mobile operators around Europe,” said telecom analyst John Strand. “He simply assumes that mobile operators will automatically make money with a new mobile standard, even though that was not the case when they rolled out 3G and 4G.”

To some extent, managerial prowess and ability to foster and leverage innovation might also matter, as the applications and services part of the internet of things, enabled by 5G, will be created--willed into being--not simply harvested. Not every country or region will be equally situated, in that regard.

Keep in mind our history with 3G and 4G, both of which were supposed to unleash waves of innovation leading to valuable new services and revenue streams. That expectation lead to overbidding for spectrum in India and Europe, where operators also overpaid for 3G spectrum.

As it turned out, 3G eventually lead to mobile email and then mobile internet access as new apps that drove revenue, but might have had less upside than expected.

Bidders were more restrained in bidding for 4G spectrum, but the notion remained that a faster network, with lower latency, would drive creation of new apps. Early on, tethering emerged as a new driver of behavior, 4G being a much-more-effective platform for use of mobiles for browsing and app use.  At the moment video entertainment consumption also is joining those earlier apps as hallmarks of 4G as an enabler of new use modes, behaviors and apps.

In a similar way, 5G is seen as enabling a new wave of applications, services, revenues and user behaviors, partly by humans but mostly by machines. The extent to which that happens remains a big question. But it is safe to say that it mostly will be the bigger operators, with bigger internal markets and assets, that will benefit most, because they will be able to participate not only in the “access” demand, but also be owners of the applications and services enabled by the access.

For all of those reasons, the strategy now envisioned by many tier-one access providers--own at least some of the applications and services flowing over the pipe--makes good sense. In addition to providing access services, larger tier-one service providers have the ability to become owners of at least some of the apps and services delivered over any access network.

That might eventually include connected car services and other internet of things apps in other industry verticals (healthcare, home security, media). In other words, the notion that “moving up the stack” is necessary is well founded.

Nothing "Natural" About Monopolies or Duopolies in Telecom

To break even in the long run, the operator’s revenues less avoidable costs must cover its sunk costs. The number of players in the industry will adjust in the long run to ensure this margin is realized.

The general observation is correct. In a capital-intensive industry such as the telecom business, only a relatively small number of firms can invest and still hope to wring a profit out of the venture. As a rule, that number is somewhere between two and three firms.

But market size matters. Larger markets can support more contestants, generally speaking. Markets where suppliers have more differentiation can support more contestants. Conversely, markets where price competition dominates might not support so many contestants. Also, in markets where competitors compete in the same geographies, there tend to be fewer sustainable opportunities.

source: Phoenix Center

If telecom access services no longer are thought of as being a “natural monopoly,” neither is the business capable of supporting many providers on a sustainable basis. Precisely “how many” providers are viable in any single market is the issue. In some markets, regulators believe a minimum of four providers is sustainable.

In other markets, many believe only three mobile providers can survive, plus perhaps some number of fixed network operators. In some markets, the present number of mobile suppliers is as few as two. In some markets, perhaps even two cannot be sustained long term, others would argue.

A research paper produced by four professors suggests that, in the Philippines, it will be hard to create more competition beyond the two providers (Globe and PLDT) that now divide the market, unless a government-funded wholesale network is created.

But they suggest competition is needed. The Philippines prices represent consumer costs at 5.9 percent of gross national income per capita,  compared to the regional average of 1.7 percent.

At least traditionally, “regulation is the main lever by which governments can influence competition in the telecom industry, increasing or decreasing the barriers to entry,” the authors say. Some might argue it will not be that simple, going forward. Market entry can be open, and yet competitors might rationally conclude their is no opportunity.

The availability of a spectrum may be the current largest single barrier to entry, the authors say. And yet, what is necessary is not sufficient. “Economically, telecom requires massive capital requirements implying high barriers to entry,” they say.

That noted, the institutional framework matters quite a lot. “Network infrastructure alone for the newcomer could cost as much as US$2.5 billion,” the professors say. Not even that explains the extent of the problem.

“With a constitutional limit of 40 percent on foreign ownership, this effectively limits the presence of companies that can inject fresh new capital,” the researchers note.

A transparent spectrum allocation process, probably using an auction process,  is better than an administrative approach, say a team of academics looking at the Philippines telecom industry.

Perhaps the biggest conclusion they reach is that market entry by a third competitor is “not viable” under the present circumstances.

Spectrum allocation process is important because the method chosen by the regulator determines the resulting structure of the industry.

The present two-player structure is “fiercely competitive,” the authors say. But they also note that  the “Philippine telecom market is highly concentrated.”

The two major telcos, Globe and PLDT, control almost 100 percent of the market and with a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)12 of 5162. To put that figure in perspective, the U.S. Department of Justice considers a market with an HHI of less than 1,500 to be a competitive marketplace, and an HHI of 2,500 or greater to be highly concentrated marketplace. At 5162, the Philippines market is extremely concentrated.

Under such conditions, only a publicly-owned third player can afford a  “last-mile” network, they argue. The perhaps-unstated qualifier is that this arguably is true without bigger changes in regulatory policy, underlying technology or business model that can change the potential business model for any third provider.

Were a third (or additional) providers able to get into business without paying for spectrum; using new access platforms; with strong mandatory wholesale rules and possibly different business models, a third competitor might well be viable.

What can not be done under the present framework does not mean a different framework results in the same constraints on any new competitor entering the market.

source:  Epictetus E. Patalinghug Professor Emeritus University of the Philippines ;Wilfred S. Manuela Jr. Associate Professor Asian Institute of Management ; Regina Manzano-Lizares Assistant Professor University of the Philippines; Jason C. Patalinghug Assistant Professor Southern Connecticut State University

Dish to Build IoT Network

Dish Network is raising $1 billion in a bond sale expected to be used by Dish to build an internet of things network, using NB-LTE. That helps clarify a key part of Dish Network’s wireless strategy, which is to avoid losing rights to its spectrum because it has not made meaningful progress towards building an actual network.

According to Federal Communications Commission rules, Dish has to activate a network with 40 percent signal coverage, using the  700 MHz licenses it purchased in 2008 (a deadline it will miss), or, alternatively,  reach a 70 percent buildout by March 2020. That latter target is what Dish now will have to meet. Similar requirements are in place for other spectrum Dish has rights to use.

By focusing on NB-LTE, Dish can claim it is building a network that does not compete head to head with the LTE networks operated by the other big mobile service providers, as NB-LTE aims to support machine-to-machine devices, not human end users.

Much still remains to be established. Dish has no special competence in M2M services and industries, and no operational experience with mobile services. It likely would need a partner to both build and provide retail services. Beyond that, the market size for M2M services is unproven, if considered the next wave in mobile revenues and Dish’s ability to gain enough market share also is unknown, given competition from several would-be nationwide IoT networks and IoT efforts by the other four major U.S. mobile service providers.

"Connectivity is Not an Asset?"

The challenge of avoiding a low-margin, dumb pipe role in the internet ecosystem remains a key strategic  issue for executives running telecom, internet service provider or mobile services firms, as does the product maturation affecting all legacy telecom services (voice, messaging, internet access, linear video services, legacy business access services).  

In addition, it remains unclear whether mobile data can be monetized on a sustainable basis, whether spectrum rights actually create a sustainable advantage, or whether access “users” actually will remain “customers” forever.

“Connectivity is not an asset,” said Alexey Reznikovich, Veon (VimpelCom) CEO. Few internet service providers, mobile operators or telcos likely agree, in a literal sense, since “access” and “subscriptions” literally are the foundation of the business and the specific role within the communications and internet ecosystems.

So take the Reznikovich statements as slightly hyperbolic warnings to “add value” to the access business. Up to this point, that process of adding new value and revenue sources has worked. Fixed network voice was replaced by mobile voice; then mobile voice augmented by text messaging revenues. Later, maturing mobile voice and texting revenues were supplanted by mobile data services.

But Reznikovich raises a key issue: will mobile data actually drive profit? There are two angles. First, whether mobile data access services are--and can remain--profitable in their own right. The second question is whether service providers can create new roles in mobile apps and services, with value and revenue streams to match.

AT&T Supports 12 Million Connected Vehicles

AT&T says it supports more than 12 million vehicles with connectivity services, growing about a million new connections each quarter, working with at least 22 global brands. "Automakers are wanting to be able to get updates off a car and be able to update the car over the air similar to what we do with smartphones,” said Chris Penrose, AT&T SVP.  Safety, security, remote access and location-based services also are sought.

5G Not a Guaranteed "Winner" For All Mobile Operators

To a greater degree than has been the case in the past, 5G success will be uneven: offering bigger potential financial rewards to the bigger service providers and possibly even some financial distress for smaller operators.

The reason is that smaller operators will be able to monetize access services, while the larger operators might (should) be able to leverage applications and services built on 5G connectivity. The analogy is video entertainment services, which have proven a positive revenue source for the biggest operators, while being a money-lower for most small providers.

“One of the most important politicians in the EU told me that it looks like 5G will drive tremendous growth in mobile companies' revenue, and he could not understand the complaints from mobile operators around Europe,” said telecom analyst John Strand. “He simply assumes that mobile operators will automatically make money with a new mobile standard, even though that was not the case when they rolled out 3G and 4G.”

To some extent, managerial prowess and ability to foster and leverage innovation might also matter, as the applications and services part of the internet of things, enabled by 5G, will be created--willed into being--not simply harvested. Not every country or region will be equally situated, in that regard.

Keep in mind our history with 3G and 4G, both of which were supposed to unleash waves of innovation leading to valuable new services and revenue streams. That expectation lead to overbidding for spectrum in India and Europe, where operators also overpaid for 3G spectrum.

As it turned out, 3G eventually lead to mobile email and then mobile internet access as new apps that drove revenue, but might have had less upside than expected.

Bidders were more restrained in bidding for 4G spectrum, but the notion remained that a faster network, with lower latency, would drive creation of new apps. Early on, tethering emerged as a new driver of behavior, 4G being a much-more-effective platform for use of mobiles for browsing and app use.  At the moment video entertainment consumption also is joining those earlier apps as hallmarks of 4G as an enabler of new use modes, behaviors and apps.

In a similar way, 5G is seen as enabling a new wave of applications, services, revenues and user behaviors, partly by humans but mostly by machines. The extent to which that happens remains a big question. But it is safe to say that it mostly will be the bigger operators, with bigger internal markets and assets, that will benefit most, because they will be able to participate not only in the “access” demand, but also be owners of the applications and services enabled by the access.

Where Will Telcos Find Roles in Connected, Autonomous Vehicle Ecosystem?

What are the opportunities for telecom companies in the new mobility ecosystem based on connected and autonomous vehicles? Much could hinge on how successful access providers are in creating new roles in the applications and services portions of the ecosystem (either by organic growth or, or more likely, acquisition).

Almost nothing is certain about internet of things, much less the roles internet access providers will play in the ecosystem. That some amount--perhaps a significant amount--of incremental access revenue will result is a given.

In connected cars, passengers will likely continue to rely on mobile connections or car entertainment systems (or both) to stream content and access information. But the bigger opportunity lies in owning the infotainment and navigation services, which could reach about $40 billion in revenue globally in 2020.

Some are optimistic, arguing that telecom companies are well positioned--beyond connectivity--to leverage billing, payments, analytics for planning and optimization, and asset management services. Of course, we have heard that argument many times before, and not so much has actually happened.

Fleet management services, including automated fleet scheduling, dispatching, and tracking as well as assisting in managing the rapid anticipated growth of autonomous fleets, also is seen as an area communications providers might supply.

If that seems unlikely, consider the way other access suppliers (such as cable TV companies) now own content assets and the networks to deliver content; own telematics services or home security operations.

Much could hinge on the way new IoT systems develop. In the autonomous vehicles space, for example, it might make a great deal of difference whether core functions are self-contained in each vehicle or rely on vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. That could affect the size of the communications services opportunity.

Deloitte’s analysis has found that the breadth of future mobility use cases requiring connectivity is expected to generate data traffic of roughly 0.6 exabytes every month by 2020—about nine percent of total US wireless data traffic.

Deloitte also estimates that data traffic associated with mobility and transportation could grow to 9.4 exabytes every month by 2030.

But leaders at the biggest tier-one providers might also hope to assume additional roles in the content and applications portions of the ecosystem.

source: Deloitte University Press

Shared Spectrum Role to Grow

Shared spectrum is likely to be used in several ways in the U..S. market first to support 4G, and then likely in more-intensive forms as 5G is introduced.

Among the U.S. bands where spectrum sharing will be key is about 500 MHz of capacity in the Wi-Fi 5-GHz band, as well as about 150 MHz in the 3.5-GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) band. In Europe, the 2.3-GHz band will be where shared spectrum first is tried.

Spectrum sharing also is expected around  the 60-GHz band, where  7 GHz is available for sharing in the frequency ranges between 57 GHz and 64 GHz, and where an additional 7 GHz of capacity is being considered for shared use.

Spectrum sharing also is being evaluated in the licensed 71 GHz to 76 GHz band and 81 GHz to 86 GHz bands which have in the past been used for point-to-point radio links.

source: Heavy Reading