All Carriers Cave on Early Termination Fees

Users hate early termination fees that come with their mobile service contracts. Now, in part because of pressure from lawsuits filed challening the practice, all four major U.S. wireless carriers are softening the blow.

Verizon Wireless was the first to prorate early termiantion fees last year. at&t Wireless did so in October. T-Mobile and Sprint now also say they will start prorating their early termination fees in the first half of next year.

The fees aren't gone. But the amount will decrease the closer you get to contract end date. Sprint also says it will allow allow users to change plans without renewing the contract, something Verizon started doing in October.

All the moves are user friendly. Look for more signs of "friendliness" as use of unlocked phones starts to spread, open source Android phones start to make their appearance and, just maybe, a new carrier decides to push the envelope even more.

Clearwire Shares Drop 25% at Market Open

...as a result of the scuttling of its proposed agreement with Sprint to build a natinal WiMAX network reaching 100 million potential users. Investors reason that Clearwire now will need a new cash infusion, as it continues to lose money on its operations.

Sprint, Clearwire Deal Dead

In a surprise move, Sprint Nextel Corp. and Clearwire Corp. say they are scrapping their agreement to jointly build a nationwide high-speed wireless network based on WiMax technology, after failing to reach agreement on terms of the deal.

The move naturally will increase speculation about the fate of the Xohm WiMAX venture, given Sprint's desperate need to shore up its existing mobile phone business. Obviously, the asset is easier to sell or spin off if Clearwire isn't involved.

Is it not too early to predict that Google strategists now will be taking another look at spectrum options? At the same time, might not once more note that the complexity of running two separate networks, sets of devices and software are part of Sprint's problem?

Other carriers have dealt with such issues by collapsing all services and users onto a single technology platform. Clearly, most of the churn issues are caused by the Nextel base, heavy with small business users. The Nextel iDen network is a-now unusual platform that nobody anywhere else supports, besides.

At one point, the Nextel customer base was prized within the mobile industry for its significantly-higher voice average revenue per user. These days, as revenue growth is coming from new data services, the gap has narrowed almost to insignificance, and surely will vanish.

At one time, Nextel's "push-to-talk" feature was unique, but other providers now are able to mimic that feature. It's popular in the construction business, but when was the last time you saw anybody use that feature who wasn't in a field service work scenario?

Operating two networks leaves Sprint with a troubled customer base, higher churn issues, an unusual technology platform and all the other issues--such as limited handset choice--that come from being a low-volume customer. There's more downside than upside. And be clear, most of the churn is from the Nextel side.

From Google's vantage point, it is clear that the Sprint WiMAX network will be built and operational years before any 700-MHz network will. Sprint's WiMAX network has been designed for mobile access, where Clearwire has been taking the fixed approach. Mobility works better for Android devices, obviously.

Sprint now says it will review its WiMax business plans. It also should be seriously considering what to do with the Nextel assets.

Vonage at&t Patent Settlement for $39 Million?

Vonage and at&t are discussing settling the patent infringement suit at&t has filed against Vonage for $39 million, to be paid over five years. In October, it settled with Sprint Nextel Corp. for $80 million. Vonage will settle with Verizon Communications Inc. for between $80 million and $120 million, depending on the outcome of a final court hearing.

As a result of all the patent settlements, Vonage's available cash has been reduced from $356 million to $194 million, a dip of $162 million, of 46 percent.

It isn't clear whether other VoIP providers might be liable as well. And if they are, it isn't clear Sprint, at&t and Verizon will really want to make an issue of the infringements. It wouldn't look good, for one thing. Sprint won't want to sue its own customers, the cable companies. And though th giants might be able to cripple just about all the remaining VoIP independents, the regulatory harm would outway any potential short term financial gains.

Telcos Practice "Strategic Indifference"

People who like the idea of rapid service and applications innovation typically are frustrated by the glacial speed at which network services operators move. In fact, the thought often arises that "pipes" companies, especially those dealing with actual "first mile" connections to actual users, are incapable of understanding threats to their business models.

Well, they do move slowly, compared with anything in the software world. There is no Moore's Law at work with construction, trenching, installing drop wires and network interfaces. Which explains the attractiveness of wireless alternatives.

That said, it also is true that incumbents do practice "strategic indifference." That is to say, they will seemingly ignore a threat such as VoIP, just as they seemingly ignored the advent of broadband access, in the form of Digital Subscriber Line and cable modem services.

You might not remember, but North American carriers were slow to understand mobility as well. As awareness grew, carriers simply bought the whole wireless industry.

The point is that the indifference is quite planned. If an innovation will harm current revenues, it makes business sense to plan to lose some market share and revenue rather than embrace the trend fully and lose even more money. Up to a point, incumbents will let attackers take share, on purpose.

If the innovation reaches a tipping point, where there are strategic drivers, incumbents simply pile on in a massive way. That's why the VoIP activity on the part of North American incumbents is so different from that of European carriers. In Europe, VoIP is past the tipping point, and incumbents must play. That point hasn't yet been reached in North America.

When the tipping point is reached, they'll move, and aggressively. But this is a matter of maximizing total revenue. If revenue is maximized by delaying VoIP, that's what carriers will do. If revenue is maximizing by making POTS more attractive, that's what they'll do.

Such carrier behavior is not "dumb." It is planned. In fact, other industries have been "dumb."

In fact, the music industry seems not to have understood the threat or the changes posed by digital media.

You can be quite sure the video industry has learned from that experience and is anything but complacent. No serious video executive takes user-generated content lightly. Everybody is taking steps to participate in a broader media landscape, though nobody yet knows how the business models will play out.

Of course, that also means nobody is going to sneak up on video incumbents. They know exactly where to look for opportunities and threats, and are doing so. IP video will not be a replay of VoIP, in terms of executive denial, simply because tipping points might be somewhat clearer, and because change in the video software space will not entail the massive capital spending carriers must yet contend with in migrating to a broadband, all-IP future.

Video contestants will move faster than you might think.

Mobile Web More Like TV?

WhatsOpen.com offers a Web application that shows users nearby stores and operating hours. That's the sort of thing that a mobile advertising strategy can build off of. It also suggests something else about the nature of mobile Web services optimized for handhelds.

To wit, given the greater difficulty of interacting with the device, compared to a PC, maybe large portions of the experience need to be more like linear TV, as heretical as that may seem. Push useful data to me. Not all the time because that kills battery performance. But sense when it is likely I am looking at the screen. Show me something interesting.

Combine Real Simple Syndication with streaming. Maybe not streaming video, maybe streaming text. Adjust the feed based on my location. People talk about the difference between a lean-back experience and a lean-forward experience. Maybe we need to work on a stand-up experience: screen-based information and entertainment adapted for a user that is standing up and moving.

What Android Must Do

"I think for the Google platform to really be a game-changer it's going to have to offer more than just an open-source operating system for a mobile phone," says Kay Johansson, MobiTV CEO. "It will have to create mobile Internet devices that happen to make phone calls."

If Google ever does decide to bid for 700 MHz spectrum, with or without other partners, the network will be shaped by that same requirement. In fact, Google might have an opportunity to consider a different approach to what a mobile network looks like. Such a network theoretically might provide broadband coverage anyplace people are walking, spottier coverage in other places. That was the original thinking behind the "Personal Communications Service" (PCS) spectrum that instead wound up being deployed as 2-GHz cellular instead.

That might wind up being what happens again. Today, it is the troubled muni Wi-Fi approach that most resembles the old PCS idea. The Fon, T-Mobile Hotspot or Boingo hotspot approach offers less coverage than the original PCS concept called for.

In fact, the only reason one would logically want to build a new network on anything other than macrocells, incorporating Wi-Fi in some way, is that it might be possible to get a network up and running faster than if a traditional macrocell approach is used. One already would begin with fairly ubiquitous coverage in homes and offices and a reasonable hotspot overlay. Macrocell coverage probably still would be needed for outdoor coverage.

Still, an ad-driven business model ultimately could be quite do-able if one generally assumed in-home and at-office coverage, with fairly dense coverage in downtown cores and shopping malls, augmented by lighter coverage other places. There are some drawbacks, especially when the device is used in phone mode, since coverage would tend to be the reverse of what they now encounter. That is to say, indoor coverage would be better than outdoor coverage.

The point is that if the exercise is to build an optimal mobile Web network, one might have different choices. One of the bigger advantages would come from crafting a network that could be built at far-less capital intensity than a typical 3G mobile network. That would fit with the general theme of creating less-expensive handsets and service as well, so ads would produce a healthy revenue model. It's just a thought.