On Demand TV "Not So Everywhere"

Comcast Cable subscribers will be able to watch popular cable television series such as HBO's "Entourage" and AMC's "Mad Men" on your computer by the end of the year without paying extra — as long as you're a Comcast Corp. subscriber watching at home.

The initiative is a starting point for Comcast, which hopes to eventually offer what some call "TV Everywhere" service: linear video programming on demand, over any broadband network.

Comcast, wanting to make sure the shows will remain off-limits to non-subscribers, apparently still is working on providing access over competing home broadband systems as well as on the go — at work, on laptops and, one day, over cell phones.

Comcast will be the first cable TV operator to unlock online access to a many cable shows and movies, aiming to replicate what's available on television through video on demand.

Comcast subscribers can initially watch shows and movies only on their home computers after being verified by the cable system. And for now, the online viewing will be restricted to those who also get Internet service through Comcast, and not on any broadband connection.

That might be helpful for Comcast consumers watching on-demand fare at home. It will not be so helpful if those customers would prefer to watch on their mobiles or any other broadband connection.

But it is a start.

Net Neutality: What Verizon and Google Can Agree On

Though there are many issues upon which Verizon and Google disagree, both companies say they agree on some elements of network neutrality.

"For starters we both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform. where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice," say Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.

That should come as no surprise. Those rules already are part of the Federal Communications Commission "Internet Freedoms" principles.

Both executives say the current debate about network neutrality is about the best way to "protect and promote the openness of the Internet."

Both executives say "it's obvious that users should continue to have the final say about their web experience, from the networks and software they use, to the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online."

"Second, advanced and open networks are essential to the future development of the Web," McAdam and Schmidt say. "Policies that continue to provide incentives for investment and innovation are a vital part of the debate we are now beginning."

"The FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear that users are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience--from access to apps and content, so we think it makes sense for the
Commission to establish that these existing principles are enforceable, and implement them on a case-by-case basis," McAdam and Schmidt say.

"We're in wild agreement that in this rapidly changing Internet ecosystem, flexibility in government policy is key," they emphasize. "Policymakers sometimes fall prey to the temptation to write overly detailed rules, attempting to predict every possible scenario and address every possible concern," and that
"can have unintended consequences."

Both executives say "broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, "malware" and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future, so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers' preferences, and don't unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive."

"They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television," both men say.

"While Verizon supports openness across its networks, it believes that there is no evidence of a problem today -- especially for wireless -- and no basis for new rules and that regulation in the US could have a detrimental effect globally," they say. "While Google supports light touch regulation, it believes that safeguards are needed to combat the incentives for carriers to pick winners and losers online."

That isn't to say the two firms have identical interests or views. But as we have seen in prior discussions about net neutrality, there is more room for compromise than sometimes seems to be the case. That undoubtedly will be the case this time around, as well.

Mobile Social Networkers Do More of Everything

“Do we have to build a social network on our own or do we have to invest in an existing one?" asks France Telecom CEO Didier Lombard. "We haven’t decided yet.”

The question itself provides a clue to the growing importance social computing and networking holds for mobile service providers. To be sure, we are at the beginning of a convergence between mobile behavior and social application behavior.

On average, only about seven percent of 16- to 24-year-olds already access social networking sites from their mobile phones, says Forrester Research analyst Thomas Husson.

But that is going to change.  In the United Kingdom, up to 40 percent of 16- to 24-year-olds are already using or are interested in accessing social networking sites from their mobile phones, says Husson.

In addition to accessing social network updates, social computing apps include media-sharing, such as viewing and sharing photos or videos taken from their mobile phones or use microblogging services.

Three percent of European mobile phone owners access blogs from their mobile phones, either to view them, comment on them, or publish them; the same percentage read or post customer reviews and ratings, Husson says.

Five percent of all European mobile phone owners upload photos to the Web straight from their mobile phones, while nine percent of 16- to 24-year-old mobile phone owners do so.

But mobile social networking is growing fast. About 65 million people are now actively using Facebook Mobile, for example, more than tripling its audience in eight months.

Handset manufacturers and mobile service providers also are becoming more active in the mobile social networking arena.

Handset manufacturers are actively partnering with social networking sites to integrate access with specific handsets, making social networking as easy as making a call or sending a text message.

Service operators also are forging their own partnerships for many of the same reasons. Consumers who access social networking sites using mobile phones are heavy users of communication services.

Where 34 percent of mobile users say they use text messaging "every day," about 76 percent of mobile social networkers say they do so. Where two percent of mobile users say they access email every day, about 23 percent of mobile social networkers do so.

Where two percent of mobile users say they use mobile instant messaging every day, abour 12 percent of mobile social networkers do so.

So mobile service operators are aggregating social networks, allowing users to get, and make, all their updates from a single operator portal, for example.

"Location" is one reason the mobile social Web is seen as increasingly important. When a user's device knows knows "where you are, where your friends are, and what they are doing," social networking becomes more valuable.

Location is by at the very heart of a mobile phone’s value, and Forrester believes that location as a service will become a core enabler of mobile activities in the future.

Location will progressively become a component of social communications as consumers share their location, geo-tagged photos, and comments, helping them explore places and events that their friends recommend.

New technologies also will facilitate the connection between physical and online worlds. For example, consumers will be able to point their camera phone at a product, read reviews from peers, glance at ratings, look up information, and even find the closest store that sells it.

The key insight is that the mobile phone is not simply an extension of the PC-based Internet. That is why a great percentage of mobile broadband access (to support handset applications) is supplemental to, and not a replacement for, fixed broadband access.

Forrester expects 39 percent of European mobile users to adopt the mobile Internet by 2014. And at least initially, mobile service providers will be among the biggest winners, based on sales of new mobile data plans, Husson argues.

Though service providers worry their text messaging revenues will be cannibalized by social network posts, Husson thinks that is unlikely.

Service providers also are likely to benefit in the form of reduced churn if they are able to create the most compelling user experiences.

Advertising, premium content and payment services also are other likely revenue streams. In the future, wiring money to one's social mobile contacts using a mobile phone could be very convenient, for example.

Aggregation and synchronization of social network and other key address books with location information in real time are likely to become important ways mobile service providers create value.

Kindle Connections Now Go to AT&T

In a business with true scale and scope economies, ownership of a global network can be a key advantage. Consider network support for the Amazon Kindle book readers, which now are sold internationally.

The U.S. version of the Kindle 2 has used the Sprint 3G network. But both international and U.S. versions will henceforth use the AT&T network globally. Existing U.S. Kindle owners will continue to use Sprint, but all new devices will be powered by the AT&T network.

Of course, there are other ebook readers. Barnes & Nobles sells the Nook, Sony sells the Daily Edition and Plastic Logic sells the Que. All of those readers use AT&T's network.

Verizon will provide service for the upcoming iRex e-reader.

The financial impact to Sprint might be a relatively minor issue. Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett estimates the Kindle will drive one million Kindle users a year to AT&T that Sprint would otherwise have gotten.

Moffett estimates that Sprint makes about $5 for each subscriber addition and $2 per every e-book downloaded onto Kindle over its networks, according to Business Week writer Olga Kharif.

The real issue is whether other upcoming devices and services have enough of a global angle, and enough sales volume, that providers such as Sprint are unable to compete in those new lines of business as well.

How Long Will 40 Gbps, 100 Gbps Networks Last?

The problem with networks is that they do not last as long as they used to, which means they need to be upgraded more frequently, which also means the ability to raise capital to upgrade the networks is a bigger issue than it once was.

Qwest CTO Pieter Poll, for example, notes that Qwest's bandwidth growth now is 45 percent growth compounded annually, or nearly doubling every two years or so. That in itself is not the big problem, though. The issue is that consumers driving most of that new consumption do not expect to pay more for that consumption increase.

"From my perspective, the industry really needs to focus on tracking down cost per bit at the same rate, otherwise you'll have an equation that's just not going to compute," says Poll. Whether on the capital investment or operating cost fronts, adjustments will have to be made, one concludes.

Still, raw bandwidth increases are not insignificant. "If you look at 2008 for us it was unprecedented in terms of the work we did in the backbone," says John Donovan, AT&T CTO. "The capacity we carried in 2008, five years out, will be a rounding error.

Donovan notes that AT&T's 2 Gbps backbone lasted 7 years, the10 Gbps backbone lasted five years, while the 40 gigabit will last three years.

By historical example, one wonders whether 100-Gbps networks might last as little as two years before requring upgrades.

Donovan suggests carriers will have to rethink how they design networks, how routing is done and how content bits get moved around. One suspects there might be more use of regional or local caches, to avoid having so many bits traverse the entire backbone network.

25% of Business Apps to be Created by Amateurs, Gartner Says

By 2014, citizen developers will build at least 25 percent of new business applications, according to Gartner analysts. If that is shocking, consider the amount of Web content now freely contributed to Wikipedia or many of your favorite blogs, microblogging sites and YouTube.

Gartner defines a citizen developer as a user operating outside of the scope of enterprise IT and its governance that creates new business applications for consumption by others either from scratch or by composition.

"Future citizen-developed applications will leverage IT investments below the surface, allowing IT to focus on deeper architectural concerns, while end users focus on wiring together services into business processes and workflows," says Eric Knipp, Gartner senior research analyst.

Better technology has also lowered the bar for becoming a developer, while at the same time, users have become less intimidated by technology, empowering citizen developers to do more than they ever could before, Knipp says. Y

"The bottom line lies in encouraging citizen developers to take on application development projects that free IT resources to work on more complex problems," Knipp says.

"Citizen development skills are suited for creating situational and departmental applications like the ones often created in Excel or Access today," he says.

Will Hulu be a For-Fee Service in 2010?

It looks like much Hulu content, especially network TV fare, will move to "for-fee" status sometime in 2010.  Hulu, owned by News Corp, NBC Universal and Walt Disney Company, is quite popular, attracting more than 300 million views in the month of February 2009, but ad revenues have been disappointing.

 “It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online,” says News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey.

“We’re exchanging analog dollars for digital dimes,” and that simply cannot continue, Carey says. “I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content."

"I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value,” Carey adds. “Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.”

Precisely what content will be "behind a pay wall" is not yet clear. Hulu is not likely to charge fees for all content on its site, but what it intends to do is not yet clear.

The planned move illustrates the continuing problem virtually all content providers and distrbutors are having with IP-delivered content: gross revenue in legacy channels is not being matched in digital channels.

Will Net Neutrality Curtail Broadband Investment?

Nobody knows what final shape of proposed new network neutrality rules might take. What already is clear is the debate over the impact of such rules on network investment. Predictably, proponents of strong new rules say carriers are bluffing about the stifling effect new rules might have.

Just as predictably, leading industry executives say that is precisely the danger.

“We’ve invested more than $80 billion over the last five years to build these platforms for growth, and that’s Verizon alone,” says Verizon Chairman Ivan Seidenberg.

Speaking about the transformative role communication and information technologies can, and should have, Seidenberg cautioned that “while this future is imminent, it is not inevitable, and the decisions we make today – as an industry and as a country – will determine whether the benefits of these transformational networks will be felt sooner or much, much later.”

“Our industry has shown that we can work with the government as well as our partners and competitors to achieve mutually desirable goals of more competition, consumer choice and broadband expansion," Seidenberg says. "But we can’t achieve these ends if we interrupt the flow of private capital and delay the cascading productivity impacts of a more networked world."

“Rather than impose rigid rules on a rapidly changing industry, the FCC should focus on creating the conditions for growth,” he says.

Frank Gallaher, Stifel Nicolaus analyst, warned of just that outcome. At least some policy advocates are too sanguine about the impact on investment if harsh new rules are inacted. Likewise, Matt Niehaus, Battery Ventures analyst, warned that telecom investment capital has been declining over the past 10 quarters. The capital flight is caused in large part because of a perception that there is too much competition in telecoms, and therefore further investment is less likely to provide an adequate return on capital investment.

 "It's a perception in Wall Street, there's too much competition, and therefore it's difficult for entities to obtain a great return, " he says.

  "One of the things that worries me, is you can execute very well, and the problem is you may do all those things right, yet it's not clear you will be rewarded on the back end for it," Niehaus says.

But S. Derek Turner, Free Press research director, says carrier investment decisions are driven by a variety of factors, but regulation plays only a minor role.

"In general, firms’ investment decisions are driven primarily by six factors: expectations about demand;
supply costs; competition; interest rates; corporate taxes; and general economic confidence -- making
the overall decision to invest a complex process that is highly dependent on the specific facts of a given
market," says Turner. "It is simply wrong to suggest that network neutrality, or any other regulation, will
automatically deter investment."

Turner argues that "at the end of 2006, AT&T, as a condition of its acquisition of BellSouth, was required by the FCC to operate a neutral network for two years. During this period, while operating under network neutrality rules, AT&T’s overall gross investment increased by $1.8 billion, more than any other ISPs in America."

"In its wireline segment (which was specifically subject to the FCC’s fifth principle of nondiscrimination
in addition to the other four open Internet principles in the agency’s Internet policy statement, AT&T’s
gross capital investment increased by $2.3 billion," says Turner.

As a percentage of wireline revenues, AT&T’s wireline investments grew from 13.5 percent in 2006 to 20.2 percent in 2008, he also argues.

"During the years following the imposition of pro-competitive regulations on incumbent phone
companies as stipulated in the 1996 Telecom Act, investment as a percentage of revenue by these
companies rose from nearly 20 percent before the enactment of the law to a high of 28 percent in
2001," Turner argues. "In the years following the dismantling of these rules, relative investment levels declined to below 17 percent in 2008."

In fairness, the issue is fairly complex. One might argue that AT&T was willing to invest, even under temporary "neutrality" rules, precisely because those rules were temporary. One might argue that some investment was driven by competitive concerns, not necessarily because of high return on invested capital.

Indeed, the fact that investment, as a percentage of revenue, has grown is precisely because returns are lower than before precisely because the returns from broadband services are lower than for voice services.

Also, investment might have declined in 2008 because of the recession, or because such investment is powerfully affected by the general level of competition. In other words, executives might have been investing more than they believed they "should," not to gain revenue or share but simply to hold it. That, in fact, is precisely what executives say privately.

The other imponderable is that current net neutrality rules are fairly benign, and simply allow end users access to all lawful applications. Proposed new rules might go much further, and prohibit development of new services, driving new revenue, at a much more serious level.

To argue that benign rules have had benign impact is one thing. It is quite another thing to extend rules in ways that might actually choke off needed new revenue opportunities, at a time when everybody agrees the current revenues are unsustainable. Forcing wireless companies to follow the same rules that might be applied to wired networks with vastly more bandwidth is one example.

Net Neutality: What Verizon and Google Can Agree On

Though there are many issues upon which Verizon and Google disagree, both companies say they agree on some elements of network neutrality.

"For starters we both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform. where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice," say Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.

That should come as no surprise. Those rules already are part of the Federal Communications Commission "Internet Freedoms" principles.

Both executives say the current debate about network neutrality is about the best way to "protect and promote the openness of the Internet."

Both executives say "it's obvious that users should continue to have the final say about their web experience, from the networks and software they use, to the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online."

"Second, advanced and open networks are essential to the future development of the Web," McAdam and Schmidt say. "Policies that continue to provide incentives for investment and innovation are a vital part of the debate we are now beginning."

"The FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear that users are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience--from access to apps and content, so we think it makes sense for the
Commission to establish that these existing principles are enforceable, and implement them on a case-by-case basis," McAdam and Schmidt say.

"We're in wild agreement that in this rapidly changing Internet ecosystem, flexibility in government policy is key," they emphasize. "Policymakers sometimes fall prey to the temptation to write overly detailed rules, attempting to predict every possible scenario and address every possible concern," and that
"can have unintended consequences."

Both executives say "broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, "malware" and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future, so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers' preferences, and don't unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive."

"They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television," both men say.

"While Verizon supports openness across its networks, it believes that there is no evidence of a problem today -- especially for wireless -- and no basis for new rules and that regulation in the US could have a detrimental effect globally," they say. "While Google supports light touch regulation, it believes that safeguards are needed to combat the incentives for carriers to pick winners and losers online."

That isn't to say the two firms have identical interests or views. But as we have seen in prior discussions about net neutrality, there is more room for compromise than sometimes seems to be the case. That undoubtedly will be the case this time around, as well.

9% of SMBs Use Twitter for Marketing

About nine percent of small and medium-sized businesses currently use Twitter to market their businesses, say researchers at BIA/Kelsey.  In addition, 32 percent of SMBs indicated they plan to include social media in their marketing mix in the next 12 months by using a page on a social site such as Facebook, LinkedIn or MySpace.

Furthermore, 39 percent of SMBs plan to include customer ratings or reviews on their own Web sites, and 31 percent plan to include links or ads placed on social sites or blogs.

"Social media is clearly gaining traction among SMB advertisers," says Steve Marshall, director of research and consulting, BIA/Kelsey.

You might not be surprised if any study suggests Twitter is used disproportionately by younger people. What the BIA/Kelsey study suggests it also is used by "younger businesses."

About 16 percent of SMBs in business three years or less say they use Twitter for marketing or promotion. About 11 percent of SMBs in business four to six years say they use Twitter for such purposes.

Some six percent of SMBs in business seven to 10 years say they use Twitter for some form of marketing while just two percent of firms in business for 11 or more years say they do so.

Social Media, Networking Now 17% of Total Internet Use

Social networking and blogging sites accounted for 17 percent (about one in every six minutes) of all time spent on the Internet in August 2009, nearly three times as much as in 2008, according to the Nielsen Company.

“This growth suggests a wholesale change in the way the Internet is used,” says Jon Gibs, Nielsen VP. “While video and text content remain central to the Web experience, the desire of online consumers to connect, communicate and share is increasingly driving the medium’s growth.”

The popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Classmates.com more than quadrupled from 2005 to 2009 as well. In September 2009, Facebook had 90 million U.S. users and 300 million users worldwide. Also, those users increased the amount of time spent on social sites 83 percent from 2008 to 2009, Nielsen says.

As always is the case, marketing and advertising efforts "follow people."  U.S. advertisers spent an estimated $1.4 billion to place ads on social networking sites in 2008 and advertising expenditures are predicted to rise to $2.6 billion by 2012.

More specificially, advertisers in some verticals made huge new commitments to social media as an advertising medium. The entertainment vertical, for example, increased its spending 812 percent year over year. The travel industry increased its spending 364 percent, year over year.

To be sure, aggregate social site advertising remains a small percentage of overall ad spending. But rapid growth is the story.

Verizon Introduces Quad Play Bundles

Verizon customers in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic markets now can buy quadruple-play packages of wireless, TV, Internet access and home phone service in configurations costing as little as $135 a month with a one-year contract, for FiOS locations. Customers served by digital subscriber line service can get packages as low as $125 a month.

The basic Verizon quad-play FiOS bundle consists of the national Verizon Wireless calling plan of 450 minutes, "Freedom Essentials" voice service, FiOS Internet service with 15 Mbps downstream, 5 Mbps upstream connection speeds and FiOS TV "Essentials" service.

For customers served by Verizon's copper network, the lead quad-play bundle consists of the national Verizon Wireless calling plan of 450 minutes, a "Freedom Essentials" calling plan, broadband access with downstream connection of up to 3 Mbps and the DirectTV Plus DVR package.  A one-year Verizon commitment and a two-year DirectTV commitment with hardware lease are required with these bundles.

With four services all on one bill, qualifying quad-play customers will save from $59 to $179 a  year, depending upon which bundle they order.

New customers who sign up by Jan. 16, 2010 for FiOS quad-play or triple-play bundles that include broadband and TV also will receive a $150 Visa prepaid card. New customers who subscribe to quad-play or triple-play bundles that include Verizon Freedom Essentials, Verizon broadband access with an up-to-3 Mbps or 7 Mbps speed, and DIRECTV service will receive three months of free broadband access service.

Droid Does?

I'm not so sure the really important thing about the upcoming Motorola "Droid," which will be available on the Verizon network, is whether it is an "Apple iPhone killer."

Certainly Motorola and Verizon hope the device does attract users who otherwise might be attracted to an iPhone. There are clear commercial reasons for both of those firms to hope the device is a wild success.

But I'm not convinced what the world needs is a better iPhone. What it might need is more devices that do different things than the iPhone, that appeal to new user segments and lead applications.

It makes a better headline to focus on the "iPhone versus Droid" angle, but I don't think that's the main thing. Give users something different. Just as important, give users more reasons to do things with a smartphone that really aren't as easy, or preferable, on an iPhone.

Quick Messaging Phones Gain Favor Fast

While smartphones like Apple’s iPhone, the BlackBerry Storm, and T-Mobile’s Android-based MyTouch get all the attention, another category of mobile phones has quietly been accelerating its market share, says Forrester Research.

The quick messaging device offers a keyboard and, or touchscreen, providing much of the functionality of a smartphone but lacking the high-level operating system. Where a smartphone user likely is interested in email or mobile Web, a quick messaging user is text message centric.

At the start of 2008, seven percent of U.S. adult mobile subscribers owned a smartphone, while just one in 20 subscribers used a quick messaging device. A year later, more than one in 10 adult subscribers was using a smartphone, an impressive growth rate of 57 percent, but quick messaging devices grew nearly twice as fast and almost doubled their market share to nine percent.

In other words, quick messaging devices have nearly reached the level of smartphone penetration.

With all major operators expanding their quick messaging lineup and prices declining, these numbers are likely to continue in 2009, Forrester Research predicts.

For example, AT&T today offers more than 10 phones in this category, beginning at just $9.99
for the Motorola Karma when purchased online with a two-year contract. Verizon Wireless goes even further with the Samsung Intensity. Iit’s free with a two-year commitment, says Charles S. Golvin, Forrester Research analyst.

As you might guess, mobile subscribers ages 18 to 24 are nearly 50 percent more likely to own a quick messaging device than a smartphone.

Smartphones are most prevalent among subscribers ages 25 to 34, yet quick messaging devices are nearly as popular in this segment, and more than doubled their share in this group last year, says Golvin.

Quick messaging devices also appeal to a more mainstream audience. In terms of demographics and psychographics, quick messaging device users more closely resemble other mainstream mobile subscribers than do smartphone users.

While smartphone owners are overwhelmingly the male, well educated technology optimists that personify the early adopter, quick messaging device owners earn slightly less than the average subscriber and are more likely to be female.

More importantly for mobile operators, the quick messaging device owners spend a much higher percentage of their monthly income on mobile services than does the average subscriber.

Ttext messaging (SMS) is the driver. Some 70 percent of quick messaging device owners say they use SMS daily.

From a mobile operator's point of view, quick messaging customers are important because they are "mobile centric." Their traffic is much more likely to remain on the mobile network than to terminate on a landline and their communication is more likely to end up on another phone than on a PC.

More than 60 percent of quick messaging device owners use multimedia messaging (MMS), which most often exploits the phone’s camera and terminates on another mobile phone. For large operators like Verizon Wireless and AT&T in particular, this traffic is more likely to be “on-net,” which reduces their fees from interconnections with other operators.

Users with a quick messaging device are more likely to be primarily motivated by entertainment than the average mobile subscriber. Therefore, it’s no surprise that these subscribers are among the most avid purchasers of content for their mobile phone, says Golvin.

Nearly half of quick messaging device owners say they bought at least one form of content in the past six months, versus only one quarter of all subscribers.

"Heavy Texters" are a fast-growing mobile end user segment.

Email Remains Enterprise Collaboration Killer App

Email remains the enterprise collaboration "killer app," according to a new Forrester Research survey of some 2,000 enterprises (click image for larger view).

And despite the hype, most "Web 2.0" applications are not widely adopted, the survey finds. In fact, email, word processing, Web browsers and spreadsheets are the top four applications used by information workers, the survey finds.

But even among those apps, the level of involvement or expertise varies widely. While 60 percent of employees use word processing daily, only 42 percent actually
create documents.

Most other applications are used by only a minority of information workers.

One clear area of demand, though, is smartphones. The survey suggests that only about 11 percent of information workers actually use smartphones now, but 33 percent of respndents say they use a personal mobile phone for work purposes.

About 21 percent of respondents would like to get email outside of work, and 15 percent would like email on a smartphone.

· Collaboration tools are "stalled out", says Ted Schadler, Forrester Research analyst. Collaboration tools are important for people on a team, particularly if that team is distributed across many locations, he says. But the tools are not widely adopted.

Only 25 percent of enterprise information workers uses Web conferencing and
one in five uses team sites.

That leaves email with 87 percent adoption as the default collaboration tool for most people.

Forrester surveyed 2,001 U.S. information workers as part of the study, focusing on
employees of organizations with 100 or more employees. About 44 percent of respondents indicated they work at organizations of 5,000 or more employees.

Still, it’s really location flexibility that matters most to employee productivity, and laptop users at
companies with wireless access and secure network access benefit from that.

Telework is on the rise, poised to grow to 63 million U.S. information workers by 2016, says Schadler.

Mobile Social Networking Doubles

About 10 percent of social network interactions now occur on mobile devices, compared to five percent 12 months ago, Forrester Research notes.

Interestingly, that is just about the same percentage of U.S. consumers who use mobile devices to interact with their email. According to a study by Epsilon, about nine percent of North American users do so.

Both of those trends have implications, bearing directly on how much people can substitute mobile access for fixed PC access to applications.

That in turn has implications for the design of Web services and applications that can be optimized for mobile use.

End User Danger from Overly-Broad Net Neutrality?

Keep in mind that there is nothing the government can do about the Internet, the quality of our services, the amount of innovation or investment in innovation that can fail to benefit or harm somebody's interests.

That doesn't mean any particular policy is wrong or right, simply that there is nothing "good" anybody can do in Washington, D.C. that does not at the same time have huge financial implications. The way I have always understood this principle is that "for every public purpose there is a corresponding private interest."

Perhaps nothing would have greater potential impact than any move to apply regulations--of any new sort--to IP networks generally, not just the "public Internet."

The reason would be troubling is that all sorts of networks now use IP technology, not just the "Internet." Private corporate networks, satellite TV, cable TV, telco TV, satellite and terrestrial networks of many sorts use the same technology as the public Internet, but are not part of the public Internet.

From a policy perspective, that implies great danger. The reason is that radio, TV, print and communications all are regulated in very different ways. But as all services now can be delivered using IP technology or the public Internet, definitiions that are too broad will ensnare any "net neutrality" rulemaking in a broader regulatory discussion that simply cannot be entertained at the FCC's level.

Raise the number of affected interests, as such a broad move to regulate all IP traffic would, and nothing will happen. Some might find this the best outcome, but to the extent that anything rational gets accomplished, the discussion must be contained in some real ways.

The nature of broadband access lines is that they can carry any sort of traffic, and some of that traffic is regulated in very different ways, some of which the government has little right to regulate. Phone services are the most-heavily regulated, content of the sort we once associated with newspapers is least regulated.

Radio and TV broadcast content is more regulated than print, less regulated than voice. Cable TV is slightly more regulated than "broadcast," in some ways, slightly less regulated in other ways. Private data networks used by businesses tend not to be regulated at all.

The danger is that too-broad an approach accidentally will be taken, ensnaring the entire discussion in broader areas that arguably do need review, but frankly are so complicated now that nothing could be accomplished.

The specific goal of proposed new non-discrimination rules is precisely that: protecting application providers from access provider discrimination. The problem is that "packet discrimination" is at the heart of many other services of extreme value to end users.

Voice, video entertainment and core enterprise business processes are prime examples. Whole ecosystems of end user value are based on the ability to maintain quality of experience at a high level.

On any communications network with congestion, and that is virtually all networks, some applications have higher end user value than others. Packet prioritization of some sort might, under such conditions, be valuable to end users.

So long as business discrimination is not the result of such prioritization, there are lots of good reasons for continuing to allow IP-based businesses to do so, especially when they have the right to do so, based on their differing regulatory regimes.

The danger here for end users and providers of applications is an overly-broad treatment of "net neutrality," and the issue of whether we are talking about private IP networks or the "public" Internet is such an example, especially as Web browsers might be used as the client side access to private services.

Do Prices, Speeds Benefit From Robust Broadband Wholesale Policies?

“Open access” policies—unbundling, bitstream access, collocation requirements, wholesaling, and/or functional separation—have played a core role in the first generation transition to broadband in most countries with high access rates and lower prices, a new study by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society suggests.

The authors suggest the same principles will be important in the next phase of development, where higher speeds must be provided, as well.

The highest prices for the lowest speeds are overwhelmingly offered by firms in the United
States and Canada, all of which inhabit markets structured around “inter-modal” competition—that is, competition between one incumbent owning a telephone system, and one incumbent owning a cable system, the report argues.

The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost all offered by firms in markets where, in
addition to an incumbent telephone company and a cable company, there are also competitors who entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities, the report says.

The argument, in essence, is that robust wholesale policies contribute meaningfully to providing consumers with faster speeds and lower prices.

There is a logic to the argument which is hard to disagree or agree with in the abstract, since another huge issue is the setting of policy frameworks that encourage robust investment in new broadband networks by private entities.

No policy will be effective, in any particular country, if private capital cannot be raised to build the networks. Conversely, any policy can work so long as adequate capital can be raised.

And though the temptation is to argue about the implications for strong "network neutrality" policies, that is a different issue. The issue here is the same argument national policymakers had when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was weighed, namely, "what is role for wholesale policies" in setting pro-growth and pro-competititive policies?

T-Mobile USA Sidekick Data Nearly Fully Recovered

T-Mobile USA and Microsoft now say they have “recovered most, if not all, customer data for those  Sidekick customers whose data was affected by the recent outage,” says Roz Ho, Microsoft corporate VP.

"We plan to begin restoring users’ personal data as soon as possible, starting with personal contacts, after we have validated the data and our restoration plan," Ho says. "We will then continue to work around the clock to restore data to all affected users, including calendar, notes, tasks, photographs and high scores, as quickly as possible."

"We now believe that data loss affected a minority of Sidekick users," Ho added. Despite that good news, two class action lawsuits have been filed against T-Mobile USA, alleging that the company misled consumers into believing that their data was more secure than was the case.

Wal-Mart Straight Talk a Tipping Point?

In March of 2009, the Opinion Research Center estimated that 8.7b million Americans already had discontinued their mobile service because of the recession, and suggested that as many as 60 million mobile users would seek ways to reduce spending.

One way many consumers seem to have done so is to substitute prepaid service for contract plans. That would account for robust subscriber growth for virtually all providers of prepaid service since then.

But Wal-Mart's new “Straight Talk” prepaid service, offered at the $30 and $45 levels, could end up being the “tipping point for millions of consumers who are already considering moving away from expensive contract-based cell phone service,” says Allen Hepner, New Millennium Research executive director.

Hepner believes that the $30 plan (with 1,000 minutes, 1,000 texts per month, mobile Web access and no-extra cost 411 calls, with no contract and no penalties) and the $45 plan (unlimited calling, texting, mobile Web and 411) that Wal-Mart now offers under the “Straight Talk” brand are going to get serious attention.

With average monthly contract plans reported to be about $81, the more than 140 million U.S. contract-based wireless customers who use less than 550 minutes a month may now have even more reason to consider switching to a less expensive cell phone option, particularly in a changing environment in which plans for 1,000 minutes are available through Wal-Mart for $30 per month, Hepner argues.

In March 2009, ORC estimated that there were 29 million prepaid accounts in service, representing about 16 percent of the total base of mobile users.

“We see that 8,740,000 Americans, that is 19 percent of consumers without a cell phone, report that they already have ‘discontinued cell phone service in the last six months because of actual job loss, fear of job loss, the recession, or any other related financial concerns," said Graham Hueber, Opinion Research Center senior researcher.

At the same time, ORC suggested that 39 percent of postpaid mobile customers--60.3 million consumers--were likely to cut back on their cell phones to save money, the Opinion Research Corporation estimated.