The Pacific Telecommunications Council now is soliciting content for its 42nd Annual Conference, PTC’20: Vision 2020 and Beyond, to be held from 19 to 22 January 2020 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

PTC’20: Vision 2020 and Beyond will look broadly at the  telecommunications sector, technologies, applications, and benefits in 2020, and also explore trends and discontinuities in the years beyond.

PTC’20: Vision 2020 and Beyond will bring into focus what otherwise would be a blur of disruptive technologies, emerging applications, shifting regulatory policies, dynamically-changing cultural norms, and new business models.

PTC invites industry executives, business strategists, financial analysts, technologists, innovators, policy makers, regulatory and legal experts, and consultants to submit proposals on forward-looking views and implications on topics representing the breadth and depth of the industry. Those include applications, technology, and policy issues for network-centric or network-enabled products, services, and uses.

New to the upcoming PTC Annual Conference are the PTC HUB Presentations and Cross-discipline/Cross-sector sessions.

The PTC HUB will be the core of the conference, offering the opportunity to conduct brief and lively 10-minute talks, tutorials, debates, presentations or interactive sessions on a variety of key issues. The sessions will demonstrate how industry functions and developments interact across ecosystems to create value, and how changes contribute to use cases.

The conference program will also incorporate a variety of formats, including presentations, interviews and moderated discussion panels. Proposals for consideration can be submitted for topical sessions, workshops, tutorials or “managed” sessions. The deadline for submission is 12 July 2019.

Academics and Researchers are invited to submit their research paper abstracts by 12 July 2019, either on a topic of interest provided or for one that fits the conference theme. Students may submit full papers by 15 September 2019. Accepted research papers are also eligible for PTC’s Research Awards, the Meheroo Jussawalla Research Award and the Yale M. Braunstein Student Award.

For more information on the PTC’20 Call for Participation and details regarding proposal options and a complete listing of topics, visit www.ptc.org/ptc20/cfp.

Market Share and Profit Margin Typically are Directly Related

Among the principles that applies to most analyses of market share in connectivity markets, especially for tier-one retail suppliers, is the relationship between market share and profit margin.

In most markets, two suppliers have 80 percent of the profits, researchers note. More pointedly, the market leader can have 60 percent of total profits in the industry. That obviously leaves little share for the other contenders.

This is a nice illustration of the concept.

Looking at market share in the Netherlands mobile market in 2006, one can see that KPN had roughly twice the market share as the second-largest provider, which in turn had share roughly double the number three provider.

source: techneconomyblog

Not every market has a perfect match, but over time, at least historically, the pattern has been quite common.

source: Loraine Logan

Can Cable Win, Long Term, Without Mobility?

Cable execs keep stressing they are communications companies--and arguably leading companies--rather than video entertainment distributors. But it might be hard to do that, long term, without a key position in mobility, which drives the bulk of revenue in the U.S. communications business, unless an alternative international growth strategy is the alternative.

The Sky purchase, though increasing Comcast exposure to video distribution, might suggest the early focus.

source: Infonetics

The issue for Comcast, as for some other firms, is whether a “fixed network only” or “mobile only” strategy is sustainable.

To be sure, cable companies are positioned to take market share in business services and consumer broadband. In fact, the whole growth story for cable companies in communications is “taking market share” from telcos faster than video revenue is lost.

But the bucket is leaking. Cable has to add new revenues simply to replace lost video revenues. Net growth beyond that replacement is the issue.

SNL Kagan forecasts residential cable industry revenues will rise from $108.38 billion in 2016 to $117.7 billion in 2026, a $9.32 billion increase over the 10-year period, even as video revenues shrink.

Commercial services revenues will push total industry revenue from $130.57 billion to $140.99 billion, a $10.42 billion increase, SNL Kagan suggests.

That forecast assumes consumer broadband subscriptions grow by more than eight million over the next 10 years, largely by market share gains at the expense of telcos. That is why fixed wireless and 5G mobile substitution are such a big potential change for telcos. If 5G reduces share losses to cable TV, the consumer revenue growth estimate for cable is too high.

The SNL Kagan forecast also is sensitive to the rate of linear video subscription losses. Basic video subscriptions are projected to drop by an annual compounded growth (CAGR) rate of 1.5 percent to 45.4 million by 2026. Accelerated losses, which most likely expect, will damage the overall growth forecast as well.

SNL Kagan anticipates total revenues generated from residential video services to fall at a CAGR of -0.5 percent over the next 10 years, totalling $55 billion annually in 2026. Again, that could be overly optimistic.

Advertising revenue is expected to grow at a 4.3% CAGR through 2026 to reach $6.3 billion, but is not a big enough contributor to offset bigger losses in the core services areas.

So the strategic issue is whether the cable industry can sustain a position at the top of service provider rankings without serious mobile revenues and profits, even if taking market share in enterprise and business markets will help.

That might be likened to the position CenturyLink finds itself in: it already earns more than 76 percent of total revenues from enterprise customers on its global networks and metro enterprise services.  

Its entire national footprint of mass market customers is essentially a drag on company profitability.

source: Seeking Alpha

Mobile remains the growth engine globally, but the relative scale and importance of the mobile, fixed broadband, and entertainment TV  markets varies hugely by country and region. In 2021, the mobile market will generate 87 percent of total connectivity and video revenues in Africa and 70 percent in the Middle East, compared to 50 percent in North America and 49 percent in Western Europe, according to Informa Ovum. The differences stem largely from revenues generated from fixed networks.

Cable dominates consumer broadband, has a strong, if declining video business and is growing its share of commercial revenues. But the other leading incumbents are fighting for their lives as well, and will not easily yield market share in voice and data, least of all AT&T and Verizon, which appear to be holding their own in consumer internet access share, for example, while most of the telco industry losses come from smaller providers relying mostly on digital subscriber line for internet access.

Almost without exception, such providers also have no mobile exposure. How long such firms can compete against cable, which arguably offers better value for consumers, is an open question.

Conversely, cable can compete against weaker telcos without mobile assets quite well. Whether cable can challenge AT&T and Verizon, though, is a bigger question at the moment, so long as no clear mobile strategy at scale.

Malaysia Broadband Faster by 300% in a Year, Prices Down Sharply

In February 2019, Speedtest Global Index by Ookla reported that fixed broadband download speeds in Malaysia increased almost 300 percent to 70.18 Mbps, up from 22.26 Mbps in 2018, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission says.

Prices are lower by almost half, as well. 

The number of fixed broadband subscriptions with download speeds of more than 100 Mbps also grew by an order of magnitude between 2017 and 2018, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission reports.

The Mandatory Standard on Access Pricing resulted in dramatically-lower wholesale network pricing,  which allowed the internet service providers in the industry to lower their retail prices as well.

source: MCMC

Broadband subscriptions in Malaysia almost doubled over the last five years to reach 39.4 million in 2018.

Source: MCMC

The upsurge has been mainly triggered by wider access to 3G and 4G/LTE coverage, improved network quality and increased competition in broadband market. As at 31 December 2018, 3G and 4G/LTE network expanded to 94.7 percent and 79.7 percent population coverage, respectively. Meanwhile, High Speed Broadband (HSBB) covered more than 5.5 million premises nationwide as compared with 3.5 million in 2015.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission

Source: MCMC

More Intellligence for Net Operations, Back Office?

Does this sound like your company? A better question: if you are in network operations, information technology, operational support, customer service or some back office role, does this resonate?

Perhaps these are trends that impinge on those sorts of job functions and roles. None of them seem more-broadly top of mind for line of business mangers. 

source: Infiniti Research 

What's Worse: Protecting Producers or Consumers; Business or People?

The scope of antitrust action seems to be a growing issue. Some now argue that dispersing private power should be the main objective; others hold for the current role of protecting consumers. In essence, the issue is whether antitrust is a matter of preventing bigness or preventing consumer harm. They are related, but not identical.

And some propose that multiple purposes be served: protecting privacy, restricting the impact of money in politics, or methods of market oligopoly that are exercised through non-price means.

Some might abbreviate the new approach to a “bigness is bad” framework that assumes consumer welfare is harmed by bigness itself, even if big firms are able to provide greater variety of goods at lower prices (or for free, in the case of ad-supported app platforms and services).

Ignore for the moment that markets lead to concentration precisely because consumers prefer the products supplied by more-successful firms. Ignore the efficiency gains from scale. Ignore the quantifiable reality of lower prices possible precisely because some firms have been able to leverage scale.

The new standards aim to shift the burden of protection from buyers to sellers; from users to suppliers; from price to non-price mechanisms. One might question whether greater reliance on human agency and courts is superior to the action of markets propelled by consumers.

But there cannot be any doubt that protecting suppliers, by restraining bigness, also will introduce greater amounts of human judgment and values into a process that arguably runs better when people are free to vote with their pocketbooks.

That argument might be more true in an era when products are intangible, not tangible, and innovation is very rapid, with few moats to protect inefficient producers. In fact, one might continue to ask why inefficient producers should be protected. “Quality” is usually some major part of the answer some offer. “Local” producers are better than remote producers, even if local producer prices are higher than remote suppliers can offer.

That is part of the charm of local hand-crafted products, for example. Still, restraining price competition will introduce or maintain some amount of inefficiency, and therefore, higher prices. The impact on variety of traded goods will be more varied, but at least some products might not be available if remote and big producers are barred.

Using the consumer welfare standard, action is required only when consumers are harmed, largely by measures of harm from higher prices. Under the “new Brandeis” perspective, bigness alone is sufficient for action, even if consumer prices are lower.

The new Brandeis approach aims to protect suppliers; the consumer welfare framework says it is consumers who need protection. The issue, I suppose is “who do you fear most: big government or big business?

What if Advanced Technology Does Not Matter?

Virtually everyone “believes” (or at least acts as though they believed) that advanced technology (faster broadband, artificial intelligence, IoT, 5G) leads to an increase in productivity. People, organizations, firms and countries that have and use more of such assets are presumed to make faster productivity gains, and generate more economic growth.

The problem, aside from inability to measure precisely, seems to be that the evidence is suspect. It still does not appear that better, faster, more extensive broadband adoption actually is related to productivity gains.

source: National Bureau of Economic Research

To be sure, productivity measurement always is difficult, in part because there are so many inputs that could contribute. We simply have no way of conducting a controlled experiment.

If there is a direct relationship between broadband and productivity it is hard to measure.

source: Hedgeye

In fact, almost nothing seems to have positively lifted productivity in OECD countries since perhaps 1973.

                                    % growth in GDP/hours worked, 1971–2015

source: OECD

source: Conference Board

Still, “everyone” acts as though application of advanced technology matters; that better and ubiquitous broadband matters. Perhaps it does. Perhaps productivity would be even lower in the absence of those tools. We simply cannot prove the case.

What HDTV Could Teach Us About Mobile, OTT Video

“People prefer HDTV even when the TV is off,” one executive quipped, in the days before high-definition TV was launched in the U.S. market. What he meant was that the different aspect ratio of the screen (16:9 compared to 4:3) was preferred over the analog TV screen. It is easy to say that people wanted the higher-definition picture, but there were other elements of the experience that also changed at the same time.

The higher resolution is part of the long trend towards more realism in video, to be sure. But higher resolution also meant that pictures looked better on larger screens. So part of the attraction of HDTV was larger screens.

At the same time, the shift to flat screens also had begun, adding a further stylistic change of form factor, and something consumers clearly preferred.

The point is that sometimes consumers desire a product for all kinds of reasons beyond the stated purpose of an innovation.

That is probably good advice when considering more-recent changes, such as the shift to on-demand, non-linear viewing and streaming delivery. People might choose to behave in ways that ultimately may surprise, and not as expected.

For example, most likely believe the story that streaming has value because it provides sufficient choice at lower prices than linear TV. But a new Harris Poll suggests most consumers will eventually spend as much on their streaming subscriptions as they do on linear TV.

source: Harris Poll

Regardless of whether it is linear subscription TV  or OTT, consumers are consistent in how much they are willing to pay and the amount of content they view. Consumers want about 15 cable channels or OTT services, and are willing to spend $100 per month total, the survey suggests.

The typical U.S. home spent $107 a month on linear subscription TV service in 2018, according to Leichtman Research. And prices for streaming services also are growing. The linear TV replacement services, for example, cost between $40 and $70 a month, with Sling at the low end and DirecTV Now at the high end.

A couple of observations therefore are apt. The AT&T move into linear TV has been criticized as a failure. And some also did not favor its later move into content ownership, either. Some supporters of both moves might say the Harris Poll results tend to confirm that linear video is a springboard to OTT video, and will ultimately be of similar revenue magnitude, even if less of the total revenue might flow to any single former linear video provider.

But the poll results also suggest the shift to skinny linear bundles makes sense, since that approach is best suited to a new market in which overall non-streaming demand falls. But linear streaming formats and on-demand formats will coexist.

Mobile TV is viewed as a coming evolution of the business as well. Consumers who use at least one OTT service are heavy mobile users, with many saying they are on their smartphone for more than six hours every single day.

Streamers also consume more than 2.5 hours of video content every day on their smartphones, according to the Harris Poll commissioned by OpenX.

source: Harris Poll

What is less clear is how the video subscription business could change as mobile delivery becomes easier, or more popular. Screen size does not seem to be the limitation it once was, as mobility now seems to be valued at least as much as screen size. Unclear are the potential changes in features.

Some might argue that the big change coming with mobile streaming is simply the screen the video is consumed on, namely, the mobile phone instead of the television. So video consumption becomes less place-based (not a fixed TV location).

At least in principle, that creates new opportunities for temporary venue-based video, in some instances. But all that is yet to be developed. Still, it is possible that mobile TV might eventually result in new features for video consumption, as HDTV actually represented several concurrent changes beyond image quality.

Nine Lies About Work

Half of All U.S. Households are Not Using 25 Mbps Speeds? Impossible

Many complain that Federal Communications Commission data on broadband speeds is incomplete, misleading or wrong. Fair enough. The data will likely never be as good as gathered by Speedtest and other organizations that test actual user sessions, in the concrete. On the other hand, those tests are not “scientific” in the sense of using controlled, weighted samples.

But just a bit of logic suggests many of the complaints about U.S. broadband speeds cannot be correct, either.

Roughly 10 percent of U.S. households are in rural areas, the places where it is most expensive to install fast fixed network internet access facilities, and where the greatest speed gaps--compared to urban areas--almost certainly continue to exist.

In its own work with TV white spaces, Microsoft has targeted perhaps  two million people, or roughly a million households, that have no fixed network internet access. That assumes there are two people living in a typical household, which is below the U.S. average of roughly 2.3 to 2.5 per household.

Recall that the definition of broadband is 25 Mbps downstream. Microsoft has argued that 20 million people (about 10 million homes) or perhaps eight percent of the population (perhaps four percent of homes) cannot get such speeds from any fixed network service provider.

Ignoring for the moment access at such speeds by satellite, fixed wireless or mobile, that is about the dimensions of the potential rural broadband problem. Perhaps nobody would dispute a potential speed gap for those 10 million or so homes.

But Microsoft claims about half of U.S. residents cannot get 25 Mbps service. That is hard to believe. There simply are not enough rural households to create a gap that large when urban and suburban areas, where 92 percent of people live, have access to speeds far higher than 25 Mbps.

In 2018, U.S. fixed internet service provider speeds averaged 96 Mbps downstream, according to Speedtest.

source: Speedtest

We can freely admit that the FCC data is based on sampling and inferences from that reported data. But we should at least be skeptical, and apply some tests of sanity, when claims of the magnitude of the speed gaps are made. But Ookla’s data is likely quite representative of internet users.

Consider the incentive to test a connection speed. What sort of user is most likely to do so, and when? In my own experience, people test when they suspect a problem, not because they simply want to enjoy how fast their connections are. If anything, the Ookla tests should overemphasize tests by people who suspect they have a problem (slow router, for example).

Personally, I only test when I think I have a problem.

It simply is not mathematically possible for half of U.S. homes to be using less than 25 Mbps when the number of homes in that range are assumed to be rural households, which represent less than 10 percent of total homes.

Even if 100 percent of rural homes could not buy 25 Mbps service, such locations only represent eight percent or so of all locations.

When average speeds are above 100 Mbps nationwide, it is not reasonable to conclude that those eight percent of locations--even if all were using connections slower than 25 Mbps--could represent half of all households.

Microsoft’s claims seem impossible to believe, even if we all agree the FCC data is incomplete or even wrong.

TVision Home by T-Mobile

T-Mobile US is getting into the linear TV subscription business. 

T-Mobile US Launches TVision Home

T-Mobile US has introduced “TVision Home,” its over the top linear video service for fixed network customers, in eight U.S. markets, apparently where its Layer 3 networks already had been available.

T-Mobile US also announced it will launch nationwide streaming services later in 2019, presumably based on use of T-Mobile’s own 5G network as well as an OTT app.

TVision Home 275-plus available channels and over 35,000 on-demand movies and shows. On-screen social content, a personalized home screen and DVR for each user, smart speaker voice control with Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant, and access to security cameras are part of the service.

TVision Home launches with apps for Pandora, iHeartRadio, XUMO, CuriosityStream, Toon Goggles and HSN.

There also is a bit of regulatory arbitrage. Fixed network service providers are required to pay local fees and taxes that TVision Home is not liable for. That allows it to sell a service costing less than cable or telco suppliers.

The implications are clear enough. T-Mobile US is getting into the linear video business, to compete with cable TV operators and telcos. At the same time, it is getting into the live TV streaming business (linear, rather than on-demand), with on-demand video services such as Netflix also accessible as part of the app.

The bigger question is whether 5G mobile TV, in this form, also will begin to show consumer appetite for linear video consumed on mobile devices. Mobile service providers have offered the ability to listen to broadcast radio and TV for decades, but with no real traction. The shift to the full palette of managed video channels is new, though.

Among the questions is how some consumers might start to use the service, casting to TVs, for example.

ISPs are Not the Big Internet Problem

Among the disingenuous arguments raised about network neutrality is that it somehow “saves internet freedom.” It does not. The heart of the network neutrality argument is that internet service providers should be barred from offering any quality of service features for consumer internet access services, on the theory that any other policy would allow ISPs to degrade service on their networks, while creating “value added” services that run faster.

Ignore for the moment that fixed network speeds increased about 38 percent in 2018 alone; that with 5G delivering an order of magnitude faster speeds; with new low earth orbit satellite constellations launching; with new ways to deploy fast fixed wireless access networks; with the number of ISPs actually growing; and that you would be extremely hard pressed to find any actual instances of ISPs deliberately building “crappy” networks that run slow, just so they can try and upsell.

Ignore the coming era of edge computing that will make network responsiveness even higher. Ignore Amazon’s entry into the ISP business; Google’s existing operations and Facebook’s satellite and other ISP operations.

Every public policy has private interest implications. Net neutrality essentially protects Google, Facebook and others from potential underlying cost pressures, even as all major app providers themselves pay to “speed up” their own services, using content delivery networks.

All those firms win when “everybody” has internet access, of good quality and low price. Net neutrality rules are viewed as ways to promote such outcomes. U.S. regulators never have allowed ISPs to block or degrade consumer internet access to all lawful applications, period.

So net neutrality cannot be about preserving consumer access to lawful applications, despite the breathless rhetoric. A fair assessment would be that the danger to consumer welfare comes from the content and application sphere these days: privacy violations; excessive sales of user data; biased filtering policies; selective censorship and so forth. None of those ailments are caused by ISPs.

Internet access keeps getting better, and rapidly. The era of 5G is going to provide extraordinary low latency and quality bandwidth at prices that are low, and dropping, in terms of price per bit and even often in real terms (adjusted both for inflation and different consumer choices).