Unlicensed Spectrum and "Fairness"

Most people, if asked, will tend to say that all competitions ought to be "fair." But what "fair" means, in practice, is harder to describe. A foot race should have all contestants running the same distance, for example. That sounds fair. 

But what if the objective is to "normalize" a competition for a full range of contestants with highly-varied skills? In that case, a "handicap" system, as used in golf, might be necessary.

Something of the same conundrum might be said to exist for broadband access services. A notion of "fairness" might suggest that all licensees in a field abide by the same rules. But that rarely happens in our modern IP communications business.

Competitors always argue, and regulatory officials typically agree, that the former monopoly provider has such entrenched advantages that handcuffs need to be kept on the incumbent, at least until such time as the competitors have had a chance to become established.

But we also have the example of industries competing directly under "unequal" rules, such as cable TV and telcos, for example, where cable operators have no wholesale obligations and leading telcos do have such obligations. That is beginning to change, slowly. 

But the philosophical issues remain highly charged. Many do not believe, for example, that non-profit entities should be able to compete with for-profit entities when the non-profits can use their tax advantages to do so. 

A non-profit government entity should not, in this view, be able to compel purchase of products, or use its taxing authority to raise capital, borrow at favored rates, or employ other advantages no for-profit competitor can match.

That might be one attraction for wider availability of unlicensed spectrum: it can provide the basis for greater competition without raising those other competitive issues. That doesn't mean existing competitors will agree, only that some thorny issues are avoided if non-licensed spectrum is made available. 

Millimeter waves in the spectrum from 30 GHz to 300 GHz have not traditionally been usable for communications, even very short range (local distribution between a decoder and a TV, a mouse and a PC, a smart phone an a payment terminal).

Better coding and abundant cheap processing now makes those frequencies usable, in some cases, for the first time. 

For some of us, the question is whether any of those frequencies will be usable either for wireless backhaul or access purposes. The big problems lie with the physics. Waves at those frequencies just don't travel that far through air, limiting their effectiveness for network access. 

As a figure of merit, assume that a 3 decibel gain represents 100 percent more signal strength, while a 3 dB loss cuts signal strength by 50 percent. As always is the case with free space energy, there is less attenuation at lower frequencies, so 30 GHz to 40 GHz looks interesting, from an access perspective. 

The 80 GHz to 100 GHz range looks interesting as well, from an attenuation perspective. Because of the physics of radios, tiny antennae work well at these frequency ranges. There are line of sight and transmit power issues.

In many cases, the other issue is access to the core network (middle mile access). A robust local access network is only as good as the bandwidth and pricing of the connections to the backbone networks. 

But maybe everything can align. Unlicensed spectrum, smart people doing the algorithms, lots of people willing to share to build a big "public" or "commmunity" network, a sustainable revenue model and adequate middle mile connections. 

To be sure, incumbent service providers will not wish for such a scenario. But the problem probably is just hard enough, and small enough, in terms of revenue impact, to allow some room for experimentation. 

And, one hopes, experimentation could lead to new ways of supplying access, without upsetting notions of fairness. 

Execs Think "New IP Services" Will Drive Revenue in 2013. Really?

There is something a bit more than a little familiar about the ways surveyed industry leaders are thinking about Long Term Evolution and 4G services. Namely, polled executives logically, but perhaps somewhat critically, seem to believe that “new IP-based services” will be a “main driver of revenue for operators in 2013.”

The SAP sponsored survey of attendees to the GSMA Mobile World Congress found that 36 percent of respondents believe “improved data speed” were among the reasons to offer LTE, while 30 percent believed  “offering new IP-based services” was a primary driver for launching LTE.

No rational person would deny the soundness of those opinions. But some might recall what people were saying about 3G, and recall that exactly the same things were said.

It isn’t that the hopes are unrealistic, or out of place. But it would also be fair to say that it is unlikely “new IP-based services” really will become a “main driver of revenue for operators in 2013.”

That, some of us might say, is completely wishful thinking, unless people start defining “old things as new things” so that legacy revenue is counted as “IP new services revenue.”

Some 58 percent of respondents believe that “new offerings, including rich communication services (RCS) and 4G/LTE and increased data usage by smartphone users, will drive operator revenue.”

And there you see the problem. Many service providers are going to offer RCS services at no charge. So there is no new revenue. For those who do plan to charge, one might predict, with no further information, that any such new revenue will be rather small in magnitude.

Defining “4G/LTE” as a “new IP service” really only substitutes 4G broadband access for 3G-based broadband access. You can call the 4G services “a new IP service” in the same way that service providers define 20 Mbps “standard access” and 50 Mbps or 100 Mbps as “gold service.”

Is that really a “new IP service,” or a different tier of the same service. Sure, there are different product codes, but you get the point.

About a third of respondents based in Europe and North America expected that “new services” such as video broadcast and movies on demand would be the key to generating revenue in 2013.

To be fair, a service or product is “new” for a particular service provider who hasn’t offered it before. But do you really consider entertainment video to be a “new IP application?” It might be an “existing IP app we haven’t sold before,” but it isn’t quite what some might have in mind.

But 40 percent of Asia-based respondents placed much greater significance on increased data usage by smart phone users.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a good thing to make more revenue by selling faster broadband access. Personally, I hate having to use 3G when I am used to 4G.

But I wouldn’t say 4G is a “new IP service.” It’s a better version of an access service.

Will “new IP services” generating significant revenue emerge? Eventually. Will truly “new” services generate significant revenue in 2013. That is doubtful. People are having a hard time demonstrating something truly new.

Faster is better. Lower latency is better. Better experience is also worthwhile. But some might argue the really new things are off in the distance someplace.

New Ways Milliseconds Can Matter

Milliseconds long have mattered for high frequency traders, since a time lead of that magnitude can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra profit on a trade.

Such algorithmic trading is handled by computers, not live humans, so trading speeds  are limited by processors, software and sometimes even the distance between two computers that are parties to executing a trade.

But Adobe now believes such differences of milliseconds might someday be important for digital marketing platforms as well. It is a bit of hyperbole at the moment.

But Adobe argues that such speed advantages may separate winners and losers, according to Brad Rencher, Adobe SVP.

Adobe is aiming to build a millisecond of a lead on the competition.  It turns out that the millisecond is the one that occurs between the last piece of data a consumer “gives“ a system and the content with which the system responds.   

What happens in that millisecond?  The system needs to correlate, manipulate, measure and analyze all the various pockets of data is has on the consumer and then choose, assemble and display the relevant content to her.  

The content that these algorithms choose and that the infrastructure renders, must encourage the consumer to take a preferred action, especially buying something.

The analogy is not quite perfect, since milliseconds are not relevant for human cognition or perception. But milliseconds might be a reasonable of describing latency as computers experience it when crunching enormous quantities of data before presenting some sort of solution in a marketing context.

In other words, in the big data environment, when evaluating data and then assembling offers, for example, milliseconds might matter when trying to find meaningful signals about what people are doing right now, where they are, and what device they are using, and what they might want.

So milliseconds might matter if that data has be correlated with what is known about the customer from all available sources of data (CRM, social) to create a more granular view of a particular person’s values, past behavior and buying preferences. Then the objective is to use that understanding to predict what content must be delivered, immediately and in context to achieve a commercial objective.

In that sense, milliseconds might matter, even if humans cannot apprehend delays that small.

That might also imply that milliseconds could matter, in new ways, for communication networks other than those supporting high frequency trading systems.

Kentucky Deregulates, AT&T Invests

Some observers do worry that a growing wave of deregulation regarding universal service obligations on dominant telcos is going to be bad for consumers. In Kentucky, for example, Senate bill SB88  repeals statewide service obligations on incumbent telcos regarding landline services, which formerly had to be provided statewide.

Under provisions of the new bill, incumbents must continue providing basic local exchange services to residences where those residence currently exist, and when such residences are located in areas with less than 5000 housing units.

Incumbents do not have to provide basic local exchange services when the carrier offers an alternative telephone service, when there are at least two providers offering telephone services in the area or when there is at least one provider of broadband service that is capable of delivering telephone service.

It might not be coincidental that AT&T has announced it now will spend between $600 and $800 million during 2013 to 2015 to support its current network capabilities and expand access to broadband services in Kentucky.

Perhaps observers should not worry so much. There appear to be no shortage of third party, independent service providers more than happy to compete for customers in Kentucky and elsewhere.

If the fear is that AT&T will withdraw from some markets, that only increases the market opportunity for other providers eager to fill the gap. One only has to spend time with wireless ISPs to understand that.

Reliance, Samsung to Attempt LTE Disruption in India

Reliance Industries reportedly is working with Samsung on a plan to disrupt the Indian smart phone market with a new Long Term Evolution device priced at 3G device levels as low as $100, plus service plans that include data packages starting at as low as Rs 100.

To help, the new devices will be sold with minimum down payments and installment payments with no interest.

That would be significant enough. But there are rumors that Samsung might eventually wind up as an equity partner in some way in the venture with Reliance.

That would be equally interesting, if also politically delicate.


But some amount of ecosystem tension seems difficult to avoid, in the mobile or Internet spaces.

Asus Fonepad Fully Merges Smart Phone, Tablet

It has been inevitable for some time that at least some suppliers were going to push the boundaries between smart phones and tablets, reaching some point of convergence.

Count Asus as the first to do so. Its “Fonepad” is a device with seven-inch screen that doubles as a tablet and a smart phone, having 3G voice and mobile data.

In some sense, the Asus device is the first phablet device that fully combines a seven-inch screen with smart phone capabilities. Reportedly, it will be initially selling for about 265 euros.

That means the device still is too expensive for widespread use as a converged device in many developing markets, but that is only a matter of time. No doubt pundits will find much to criticize. But that would be true of any device intended for mass market use, especially in markets where affordability is a key concern.

The issue is more than simply the availability of the first device that really blends smart phone and tablet in one device. The issue is whether, over time, such devices will be useful in many emerging markets where device cost and service cost are important barriers to be overcome.

Some skeptics have argued that in many such markets, many consumers will opt for a phone only, and not be able to afford a tablet. That assumption remains to be tested, especially over time, as prices for these sorts of combination units or phablets decline.

It might be an important new device category, for such markets.

Fonepad can be used for voice calls using the built-in noise-cancelling digital microphone or an optional Bluetooth headset, and Asus suggests the device can help users by operating with a single mobile data plan.

This Simple Chart Shows Where Broadband Growth Is Going to Happen

While it took 20 years for the first two billion people to connect to the Internet, the next two billion users will be coming online in only five years, according to Gary Kovacs, the CEO of Mozilla. 

That is a breathtaking speed of adoption. 

Average revenue per user will not be as high as in the developed regions, and access speeds might not always be as high, either. 

But the Internet-using population of the planet could double in just five years. Asia will be the global center or gravity in terms of gross subscriber additions, but Africa's growth rate will be faster. 

Will Apple and Samsung Hit the Wall?

As much as device suppliers ranging from Nokia to BlackBerry to LG to Motorola are trying to survive, not necessarily catch Samsung and Apple in the market share race, even Apple and Samsung face key issues. 

The primary problem for Apple is that the market for high-end smartphones is nearing saturation, according to Adnaan Ahmad at Berenberg Bank. 

As a result, demand for the newest iPhone, which was the main driver of Apple's growth, is softening. 

Citigroup, for example, has updated its revenue growth model for Apple, predicting single digit growth.

Samsung is going to face the same problem, some would argue. 

Service Providers Not Making Much Money from Mobile Content, Billing for It Is More Lucrative

Mobile service providers have not achieved much market share from content sales globally at least as measured by volume of downloads, Juniper Research estimates.

Mobile operator storefronts and portals now account for about six percent of content downloads worldwide, with Google Play and Apple’s App Store now comprising nearly 70 percent between them. 

That has lead many operators to close their own storefronts, Juniper Research says. On the other hand, the value of mobile content that could be sold using direct carrier billing could rise from $2 billion in 2012 to more than $13 billion by 2017, according to Juniper Research. 

Direct carrier billing might therefore be said to represent a more lucrative mobile service provider revenue opportunity than selling mobile content. 


Analysys Mason forecasts that direct carrier billing will provide service providers with more than US$12 billion in revenue in 2022. 

According to mobile applications vendor Ebscer, since BlackBerry introduced carrier billing in August 2010, the percent of sales coming from carrier billing has increased every month for Ebscer. 

At the end of April 2011, over 25 percent of total app sales for Ebscer in BlackBerry App World were coming from operator billing.

Who Does Google Compete With?

Who does Google compete with, strategically? Over the years, many names have been discussed, including Yahoo, Microsoft or Apple. Google sometimes is said to be unable to compete with some others, such as Facebook. But increasingly, the name that appears is "Amazon." 

So it is that Google has begun testing a same-day delivery service with retailers, a move that obviously will be seen as part of a wider head to head competition with Amazon in the e-commerce space, as part of Google Shopping Express.

For a firm historically associated with an advertising revenue base, that might sound odd. But lots of application providers and some service providers now see "mobile commerce" as the next big revenue frontier, with angles ranging from promotion to payments to couponing and payments, as well as a broader "product sales" function. 

That shift might see Goolge Shopping Express evolve in the direction of becoming a full marketplace, more like Amazon. 

Leap Doesn't Find iPhones Too Helpful, Apparently

One has to wonder whether the highest-end devices are such a good match for value segment mobile customers. 

Broadband Matters When People Figure Out What to Do with It

"The U.K.’s broadband market is already in rude health," said Ed Vaizy, U.K. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries. What the heck does that mean?

Basically, that the United Kingdom has done a good job of bringing low cost broadband access to its people, offering access at low prices, caused by high degrees of market competition. Challenges remain, particularly in rural areas. 

"The U.K. currently benefits from low prices and a high degree of competition in the broadband market," said Vaizy.  "The U.K. has the best deals available for consumers across a selection of pricing bundles in the major European economies."

But the role of "demand stimulation" also was cited as key. In other words, beyond making access possible, as much hinges on people figuring out ways to use broadband to grow the economy. 

"But we cannot create a world class connected Britain just by laying more fiber in the ground or building new base stations," Vaizy said. " It is also crucial that we get as many people as possible online enjoying the benefits presented by better connectivity, and also encourage British companies to expand and develop their internet-based operations."

"Ultimately it is users that will turn infrastructure investment into growth," he said.

In other words, a fixation on "raw speed" is misplaced. What ultimately matters more is what people figure out they can do with broadband, in ways that benefit the economy. 

How Much Difference Will Unlocked Phones Make?

It’s hard to ascertain the real prospects for actual movement by the U.S. federal government to mandate mobile phone unlocking in the U.S. market. But it would be fair to say that is the sort of issue politicians like. It makes them sound very “pro-consumer,” at little “cost.”

That’s a dangerous combination for any industry. But it might also be fair to note that the actual benefits to consumers might be relatively modest, even if such new rules were to become part of the framework of mobile “consumer protection and choice,” as it is certain the matter would be sold.

Presumably, the value of unlocked devices will becomes a bigger actual value to consumers only when Long Term Evolution fourth generation networks are fully established in the U.S. market, for some simple reasons.

Unlike many other countries, subscribers and networks are at the moment split into GSM (AT&T and T-Mobile USA) and CDMA (Verizon Wireless and Sprint) air interface camps. An unlocked CDMA device cannot be used on the AT&T and T-Mobile USA neteworks, while a GSM unlocked device cannot be used on the Verizon or Sprint networks.

So while the idea “sounds nice,” the actual amount of consumer value is much less than most probably would think. That is not to say there is “no” value, only that the actual value might wind up being rather minor.

And some would say it doesn’t make sense to cause potential major damage to obtain a relatively small amount of benefit.

But the value of unlocking might be more subtle than many expect. If unlocked phones are sold at full retail prices, when consumers have the choice of a subsidized device, it seems likely to expect most consumers still will continue to opt for a subsidized device. That is especially true for the popular higher end devices.

Not many consumers are going to prefer shelling out full retail price for the latest Apple iPhone, even if they can, when the alternative is a lower device acquisition price, even at the cost of higher monthly recurring costs than might be possible if subsidies were not offered and available.

Beyond that, unlocking might help some consumers and provider segments, especially users on the “value” end of the market, and some firms that specialize in refurbishing and selling reconditioned devices.

That might be helpful for some businesses, and some U.S. consumers. ReCellular has been said to be one of the largest U.S.-based mobile phone refurbishers, and a  mandatory “unlocked” phone regime might help such firms by boosting the value of used devices, at least marginally.

ReCellular resold or recycled 5.2 million mobile devices in 2010.  ReCellular sells about 60 percent of its phones in the U.S. market and the rest mostly to dealers in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.

But one might note that the market for used phones is relatively small. Global sales of used phones total a few hundred million units a year, estimates Andy Castonguay, an analyst at consulting firm Yankee Group. That compares with the 1.6 billion new phones sold world-wide last year.

That is only a proxy for the degree to which U.S. consumers might actually take their unlocked phones and switch to a different service provider.

For one thing, most consumers do not seem to keep any single device all that long. According to one U.S. study, the typical mobile device is used 18 months before being replaced. Whether that would be different in an unlocked device context is unclear.

The point is that people in the U.S. market mostly do not seem to want to keep their devices that long, whether they use one service provider or had a device that enabled easy switching. Keep in mind that the 18-month figure, like all “averages,” hides the differences between some users who will keep any device longer, and some who will replace devices even faster than 18 months. 



That is not to say device unlocking would have zero advantages for end users and some businesses. It is harder to say what such rules might do for device innovation or the fortunes of mobile service providers.

Service provider revenues might be lower in an unlocked phone regime, since device sales count as “revenue,” and since unlocked device service plans would likely be lower than current plans that include the subsidy recovery.

And it is hard to see how competition between service providers would be less robust, in a full unlocked device regime, than under the current situation.

Service providers might sell fewer phones in the first place, as retail distribution shifts to third party retailers. Whether that helps or hurts service providers is tough to say, with precision.

On the other hand, service providers might benefit. The cost of phone subsidies might drop, so lower “revenue” might also be balanced by lower operating costs.

But service providers might have less ability to “control” customers or stabilize expected revenues that are “less lumpy” because the current two-year contracts reduce churn.

The point is that although the conventional wisdom is that mandatory phone unlocking will help consumers and harm service providers, it is not clear how big those changes might be. Every action has unintended consequences beyond the reactions service providers will undertake.

More Rumors about Verizon Buyout of Vodafone Stake in Verizon Wireless

That  there are new rumors about Verizon wanting to acquire the rest of Vodafone’s stake in Verizon Wireless is not surprising.  Vodafone recently denied any such talks were underway.

Such denials are commonplace in both politics and business. And though the denials are not always a cover for actual talks, Vodafone’s latest quarterly financial report illustrates the reasons why some analysts and executives at Verizon, might be weighing some action to change the current ownership status of Verizon Wireless.

To be sure, Verizon also has said no such talks are underway. In fact, Verizon recently said no talks about a full purchase of the 45 percent Vodafone stake in Verizon were underway.

That would still leave some room for less complicate measures, such as a gradual purchase by Verizon of Vodafone shares. Some also would say a full-blown merger is a possibility. Sure, it might be, but such a huge deal would present at least some significant regulatory issues.

Where the U.S. Federal Communications Commission would allow Verizon to become that much bigger is a valid question, even though either a buyout of the Vodafone stake, or a full merger, would not immediately affect U.S. mobile market share.

Vodafone posted a worse than expected drop in group revenue for the last three months of 2012, and Vodafone might prefer to liquify its Verizon Wireless stake to pay down debt, for example.

Beyond that, low interest rates make acquisitions attractive at the moment, in large part because organic growth opportunities are limited.

U.K. 4G LTE Frequency Allotments

After some trading activity, the actual spectrum allotments for U.K. 4G LTE providers appear to be set. 

The middle block is the Time Division Duplex spectrum, the surrounding ones are uplink and downlink pairs

There's a Good Reason Why Big Public Companies Rarely Lead Innovation

Big public companies are not often noted for their innovativeness. But there's a good reason. The pressure to perform, every quarter, tends to drive out other longer-term activities for which the immediate return is minimal. 

Fon, Deutsche Telekom Do a Deal

Fon, the global Wi-Fi network, is built by consumers who contribute to the network, and is not "carrier owned" or even "carrier class" in the traditional sense.

But that has not stopped Deutsche Telekom from partnering with Fon to build Germany’s largest Wi-Fi network. The "WLAN To Go" network will launch in the summer of 2013, and is inttended to provide greater Wi-Fi offload capabilities for DT and its customers.

The deal illustrates the porosity of "access" methods in a communications environment that increasingly features a mix of "carrier-owned," "carrier grade," "best effort" and "assured quality" networks. 

Given the traditional carrier preference for licensed spectrum rather than unlicensed, and wires rather than wireless for backhaul, the new deal signifies a much more flexible approach to access, overall. 

Samsung Galaxy IV is Coming

In the smart phone race, installed base matters. Coolness matters. Advertising and marketing budgets matter. And Samsung is spending. 

Will Europe Reach U.S. Scale; Will U.S. Data Prices Reach Europe Levels?

In Europe, more than 100 mobile service providers, owned by some 40 companies, serve a population of 505 million. In the United States, four national providers, with market share between 93 percent and 96 percent, serve most of a population of 314 million. 

Regulatory fragmentation, in the form of 27 separate and sovereign regulatory entities is another problem service providers say has to be addressed. Service providers would prefer a single European regulator and consistent policies across EU nations. 

European service providers say their situation is untenable, and are lobbying regulators very hard for permission to rationalize the business by significant merger and acquisition activity. 

In a scale business, those differences probably account for the better financial performance of U.S. mobile service providers.  

For U.S. service providers, there is a different sort of concern, namely a convergence of prices for mobile data services that might potentially entail EU prices rising a bit, and U.S. prices declining more substantially. 

In part, that could come from more severe price competition in the U.S. market, in part from changes in device portability, in part from changes in device subsidy policies and possibly from a shift of end user mobile data demand (offloading to Wi-Fi). 

Potential New Rules, Taxes Illustrate Regulatory Pressures

In most countries, voice communications, Internet communications, broadcast media, cable TV and broadcasting have been governed by distinct sets of regulations. That made more sense in an era when each type of service was provided by a distinct and purpose-built network.

These days, as all media types can be delivered by all or most networks, there will be a bigger discontinuity between the older forms of regulation and the ways services are created and delivered, across networks.

Sweden's new policy of taxing use of PCs and tablets to watch the state-owned TV service, and a German decision on copyright fees, neatly illustrate some of the regulatory challenges that accompany changing communications and entertainment ecosystems.

Traditionally, Swedish households owning televisions have paid a monthly tax of SEK173 ($27) per month to support Sveriges Television, Sveriges Radio and educational broadcasting known as Utbildningsradion.

But Sweden's Radiotjänst collection agency now is collecting the fee even from Internet-connected computers. The logic is that, in some cases, PCs are used as “TV devices.”

German lower house of parliament separately approved a copyright bill that protects Internet search firms from payment of  fees to newspapers and other print publishers when snippets of stories are included in search engine results.

The bill's original draft would have allowed newspapers and other print publishers to stop search companies from showing text snippets, unless they paid licensing fees. The bill still has to win approval in the upper house, which is expected to oppose the current version of the legislation.

The other angle is that the bill does not fully settle the issue of whether search engine applications might have to pay publishers if news aggregators publish bigger amounts of content.

The move by Radiotjänst effectively makes a key form of broadcasting regulation applicable to PCs, notebooks and tablets, in a real sense, even when owners of tablets or PCs  do not watch TV. The tax is applied to a households that own Internet connected PCs, but not TVs, whether or not people in the household actually watch television or not.

Smart phones have been exempted from the law, at least for the moment, on grounds that the primary function of a smart phone is communications, not “watching TV.” Obviously, that distinction will be virtually impossible to maintain over the long term. But there is an existing principle that the “TV tax” applies to a “household,” not devices.

Presumably, that means Swedish households without TVs, but using Internet-connected PCs or tablets, will pay the fee only once, and will not have to pay for smart phone use, in addition to tablet or PC access.

Households that do not own PCs or tablets (possibly only a small fraction of all households), and do use smart phones, might ultimately be forced to pay the fee as well. The point is not whether it is “fair” or “right” for Sweden, the United Kingdom or Denmark to tax owners of TVs.

The point is that rapid changes in user behavior and device capabilities are changing the actual environment within which regulatory policy is conducted. Any nation that has distinct regulatory regimes for broadcasting, communications, Internet and print media will increasingly have to confront the growing contradictions and irrationality of older forms of regulation.

Moral Outrage Over "Loosely Coupled Networks" is Misplaced

Lots of start-ups find they actually change revenue models models on the way to building a sustainable business, compared to what they originally were funded to undertake. But there are lots of more-subtle ways businesses wind up providing value in the Internet ecosystem, for end users and other business partners, even when nothing “Internet” is actually directly related to their actual revenue streams.

These days, it is common for Internet service providers, for example, to lament the way value, revenue and equity valuations are created by successful application providers who do not have a formal and direct relationship with access providers.

That leads to ISP efforts to create such business and therefore revenue relationships between some popular application providers. One might say there is almost a sense of moral outrage that in a loosely-coupled ecosystem, companies are able to build big, valuable Internet-based businesses without necessarily having a direct business relationship with any access provider.

One might well argue that a healthy ISP business, broadly defined, is in the consumer interest, the public interest or  the national interest. One might well debate various ways to ensure that this outcome is achieved.

But some of us might argue that the sense of moral outrage is misplaced. One might argue that telecom service providers would not have preferred the loosely-coupled “Internet” as a major communications architecture able to rival their own “closed” and tightly-coupled networks.

One might argue about the degree to which telecom organizations and interests, as opposed to “Internet” organizations and interests, “created” the Internet. But it is hard to argue that telecom interests did not help create the protocols and networks, or that global service providers have not selected Internet Protocol as the foundation of their next generation networks.

That is not to say that all IP networks are “the public Internet,” or that all business models using IP are equivalent. They are not.

But the moral outrage about loosely-coupled networks is more than a bit wrong. Everyone now agrees that this is the way software gets written and that this is the way modern networks operate. The actual ownership of applications and services will vary (some tightly coupled, but most only loosely coupled).

But loose coupling (“over the top” apps) is the way we all have decided modern networks will work. That is not to say, as some once did around the turn of the century, that “bandwidth wants to be free.” That is not to argue the importance of maintaining viable access networks, or the legitimate challenges that have to be faced as massive changes occur in ISP revenue sources.

But the moral outrage really is misplaced. The layered model, by definition, presupposes separation of the application and other layers, including physical and transport layers. It therefore is not surprising at all that new revenue models and business categories now exist, and that such businesses exist without the “permission” of participants working at other layers.

The emergence of loosely coupled networks is profoundly disturbing for legacy access providers, to be sure, even if all service providers now accept such models as the foundation of their own next generation networks.

But any sense of moral outrage or entitlement is wrong and misplaced. Without question, we will need viable and profitable ISPs to support the Internet ecosystem. And video applications do pose issues for ISPs that are very complicated and challenging in a loosely coupled framework.

But that’s the nature of the networks we all have chosen to build and use. In that sense, and without diminishing the legitimate need for strong, financially viable ISP businesses, moral outrage probably is not helpful.

This is the communications world we all have chosen to live in, and some would argue it is a good model. The magnitude of transition issues for access providers should not be underestimated. But in a loosely coupled world, application providers create value, they do not steal it.

Is 3rd Place the Best any Smart Phone Provider Now Can Hope For?

Whether aiming for third place in any competition is a good thing, or a bad thing, depends on perspective. For the acknowledged "best" competitor in any endeavor, third place is a defeat. For an up and coming new competitor that never has won at that level, third is a big win.

In the smart phone business, it appears that "third" place in sales volume or market share is about the best any contestant other than Apple or Samsung now can aspire to. That is not to say that state of affairs is permanent. 

But it might now be fair to say many observers seriously doubt any of the "other" contenders have a realistic shot at anything other than third place. That might not be such a "bad" thing for lots of entrepreneurs, though. 

With a different cost structure, niche markets, specialized products or method of delivery, plus retail price, lots of competitors "too small to matter" can make a living in many businesses. That  has been true in the communications business for a few decades, at least. 

In other words, if you want to be a whale, only a few can succeed. If being something else works, lots of space exists in most communication markets. The scale will be different. So will the gross revenue and profit margin. But those niches always exist.

Specialists serving small business segments, premises-based products such as business phone systems, repair, refurbishing, language populations, migrants, prepaid and other niches provide examples. 

That is not to say the niches are permanently defensible. If the biggest providers decide they need to be in the businesses specialists occupy, and if the "whales" can figure out a way to sell at a profit (one reason whales do not pursue some lines of business or customer segments is that they cannot do so profitably), then other contestants can find themselves squeezed out of the business. 

Each business is different, but the "rule of three" process is likely at work in most parts of the communications business. By that rule of thumb, one should expect to see only three leading contestants in any market. 

Some might also suggest that in most markets, market share is unevenly shared by those three competitors. It would not be unusual to expect the share of the lead contestant to be twice that of the number two provider, and for the share held by the number two provider to be twice that of the number three provider, as a general rule. 

For contestants in the tier one part of the access provider business, and the smart phone business, the rule of three will be an uncomfortable reality for many. but that isn't the game most entities in the communications business are playing, in any case. 

Pandora on Mobile Illustrates Service Provider Bandwidth Paradox

Pandora says it is introducing a 40-hour-per-month limit on free mobile listening for its users, something that Pandora says will "affect less than four percent" of its total monthly active listeners. The average listener spends approximately 20 hours listening to Pandora across all devices in any given month.

The direct issue for Pandora is licensing fees. The key issue for access providers is more complicated. By definition, "interesting and valuable apps" are the reason people want to use the Internet. So apps create the demand for Internet access services, especially broadband access.

But with the advent of video as the dominant media type affecting global Internet transmission requirements, access revenue and profit margin are an obvious key issue for access providers, who argue they are not being compensated properly for the value of their access and transmission facilities. 

It might be correct to say that access providers worry they will not be fairly compensated in the future. By most estimates, tier one access providers are making healthy profit margins on access services. Smaller providers have a much-bigger problem. 

The bigger issue really seems to be application revenue, particularly the issue of whether application providers, especially those providing lots of video, might in the future also pay some sort of "access fee." 

That would be a major switch from the traditional one-sided business model where retail end users paid for the full price for use of the network. In the proposed two-sided model, access providers would be paid  both by end users and third party business partners, as is the case in much of the media and content business (cable TV subscriptions, for example, where revenue comes largely from end user "access" with significant "program network carriage fees" and some "advertising" revenue as well). 

The paradox for an access provider is that Internet apps both create the business opportunity and represent a major cost driver. That obvious tension might not, by itself, be too big a challenge. The bigger problem really is that legacy revenues that underpin the business are going away. 

In that sense, it is not so much that Pandora or YouTube are breaking the business model, but rather than the shrinking voice and messaging businesses are forcing service providers to recover most of their costs from Internet access services. 

In that sense, it is not the "Internet apps" that are the problem. It is the declining revenue from other major sources. 

To be sure, some might say the additional problem is that the past value chain is being disrupted. In the past, the "access" was embedded in the "application" provided by a service provider. In other words, voice was the app the customer wanted, and the cost of network access was embedded in the retail cost of using voice.

These days, "voice" increasingly is a separate app from "access." But that might just be another way of saying the real problem for access providers is the legacy revenue disappearing, not the mismatch of value and revenue earned by participants in the Internet value chain. 

Entertainment video is helpful, but actual profit margins in video entertainment have fallen dramatically, by perhaps 50 percent over the last decade or so. 

Pandora says per-track royalty rates have increased more than 25 percent over the last three years, including nine percent in 2013 alone and are scheduled to increase an additional 16 percent over the next two years. So Pandora has to cover the costs. 

Pandora notes that users can listen for free for as many hours as desired on desktop and laptop computers; pay $0.99 for unlimited listening on mobiles for any month when usage exceeds the limit; , or subscribe to "Pandora One" for unlimited listening and no advertising.

No Consumer Demand for 1-Gbps Internet Access?

Time Warner Cable's Chief Financial Officer Irene Esteves continues to get coverage every time she speaks in an investment or other conference about the state of consumer demand for 1-Gbps access, seemingly prompted in virtually every case by Google Fiber's Kansas City 1-Gbps network and service. Esteves repeatedly has said that Time Warner Cable does not see the demand for such speeds. 

Some will be tempted to argue this is a typical effort by a quasi-monopolist to dismiss a competitor's better and disruptive offering, and rather incorrect, since people in Kansas City do seem to be buying Google Fiber. 

A few might say the statement is an effort to stave off, as long as possible, or perhaps indefinitely, the need to invest major new sums in access technology. 

Others will note that since Time Warner Cable faces Google directly in Kansas City, the question is rather an obvious question for investors to ask. There is some truth to all such interpretations. 

On the other hand, to understand the comment that "we just don't see the need of delivering that to consumers." one has to unpack the statement and put it into context. 

Esteves is not necessarily dismissive of Google Fiber.  "We're in the business of delivering what consumers want, and to stay a little ahead of what we think they will want," she said, and seems always to say when asked about the state of demand for 1-Gbps access. 

A fair way to rephrase might be "At the moment, at the prices we would have to charge, we believe few customers would want to buy 1-Gbps access." The statement is highly conditional. 

At very low prices, many consumers would buy 1-Gbps. At significant prices, far fewer will do so. At high prices, a small percentage will purchase. 

A corollary might be that "right now, at significant prices compared to our other offerings, few consumers we sell to would willingly pay the incremental prices to get the fastest speeds."

The "consumers don't want it" is a highly conditional statement. Time Warner Cable and all other executives know full well there is some set of circumstances that could drive very high take rates. 

Time Warner Cable's business objective is to supply any future forecast level of demand, under competitive market conditions, at a profit, without investing prematurely or wildly in ways that harm its financial prospects. 

Some might say Time Warner Cable is craven, stupid or just wrong about end user demand for 1 Gbps access. That's unfair and incorrect. Time Warner is making a highly conditional statement about demand under a finite set of circumstances. The answer will be different under a different set of specific circumstances.