Zayo Buys Citynet Fiber Network

Zayo Group is acquiring Tulsa, Okla.-based Citynet Fiber Network, the wholesale division of communications provider, Citynet. CFN will become part of Zayo Bandwidth, Zayo Group's fiber based bandwidth business unit.

The CFN network has 8,500 route miles of fiber covering 57 Tier I-III markets in 10 states. The company's on-net buildings encompass many major carrier locations like local exchange carrier central offices, carrier hotels and wireless mobile switching centers.

The transaction is acquisition number six for Zayo, and part of the continuing consolidation trend in the U.S. metro access space.

Conflicting Regulatory Silos Keep Popping Up

One of the problems everybody faces as we move increasingly to a world of IP-enabled communications, information and entertainment is that a growing clash is occurring, piecemeal, between historically-distinct regulatory silos. Whether we can stumble forward forever, without acknowledging the end of regulatory silos, as well as technology or industry silos, remains open to question.

The problem is simply that different sorts of activities and businesses are governed by distinctly-different frameworks. Magazines and newspapers, for example, operate under First Amendment "free speech" rules and have virtually no "common carrier" obligations.

TV and radio broadcasters operate under different rules, with more limited "free speech" rights (broadcasters do not enjoy unrestricted rights to transmit any sort of content). Cable TV regulation is more akin to broadcasting than telecom regulation, but there are some tax and local franchising rules that are more akin to common carrier businesses.

Telecom companies operate under the most-restrictive rules, with legal requirements to interconnect with other telecom service providers and deliver their traffic. Data services and content generally have been immune from these rules, though. That's why the Web, and Web content, have developed essentially as a zone of freedom.

Of course, in the U.S. market there is more talk about "network neutrality", a troublesome issue not because of the immediate implications some attribute to it, but because it is just one more examples of how the old "silos" of regulation are breaking down, and becoming intellecutually incoherent in a world where media, TV, radio, music, talk, testing, Web surfing and data communications all occur over one physical pipe.

Should that not require some harmonization or revamping of the fundamental regulatory regimes each of the media types up to this point has enjoyed? And here's the crux of the matter: how does one square first amendment, "zone of freedom" rules historically applied to newspapers, magazines, data services and the Web, with common carrier rules applied to telcos, or the quasi-regulated broadcasting industry?

The fact that delivery modes change does not alter the zone of freedom newspapers, magazines and other media, even "Web media" are supposed to have. And the U.S. courts have ruled that corporations do possess rights of free speech as well. So the issue is whether the zone of freedom is expanded or contracted as multiple media types are delivered over IP pipes.

So it is that some consumer and public advocacy groups are urging the Federal Communications Commission to declare that "short code" text messages deserve the same nondiscriminatory treatment by telephone carriers as email and voice messages.

So are "short codes" advertising, a direct response mechanism, or are they "speech." And whose "speech" rights are supposed to be protected? Those of the speaker, as the early founders seemed to think, or the rights of the "listener," as jurists increasingly have argued over the past 50 years or so?

The issue is more complicated than sometimes positioned. Text messaging services might include a "zone of freedom" in terms of what is said. But note that the freedom is for the speaker. But who is the "speaker" whenever we are looking at media?

The Washington Post might not accept advertising from its competitor, the Wall Street Journal. Verizon Wireless might not accept ads from Sprint or T-Mobile. Cable companies don't take ads from telephone companies marketing competing services. In those cases, rights of speech are exercised by a "speaker." A TV, cable or radio network has the right not to allow speech (advertising also is speech) to be paid for and transmitted.

The fundamental problem is that as IP pipes carry virtually all communications, information and entertainment, we are going to see more disjointed efforts to regulate "unlike" things in "like" ways. That will be the corollary to regulating "like" things in "unlike" ways.

at&t Renegotiates Yahoo Deal

at&t says it is close to renegotiating a contract with Yahoo Inc. that undoubtedly will result in Yahoo earning less money. Under the current deal, Yahoo earns as much as $250 million a year of revenue. The renegotiation is expected to affect other deals Yahoo has with other telecom service providers.

The renegotiation is a reminder: large telcos often partner with other entities when entering a new market, and sometimes move slowly in those markets. That doesn't mean the relationships are stable. Ultimately, as they acquire the skills they believe they need, and scale, some partners aren't so important and "value" moves back inside the service provider organization.

There sometimes is a perception by outsiders that telcos are too "dumb" or "too slow moving" to dominate new markets. On the contrary, telcos are big enough, and smart enough, to wait for markets to develop before making a move to dominate. It's a business strategy, not an indication of "not getting it."

Mobility and Video Will Drive Growth

If Bear Stearns analysts are correct, mobile penetration will zoom past 100 percent, as will digital TV penetration, quite soon. Which suggests those two types of devices are where ad revenue opportunities are brightest, not to mention other sorts of "for fee" services and applications.

at&t to Drop DirecTV

at&t will stop offering DirecTV services to its customers toward the end of the first quarter. The not-unexpected move came as at&t found itself reselling both DirecTV and Dish Network services as a result of its acquisition of BellSouth, which had been a DirecTV partner. In its own territory, at&t has been partnering with Dish Network.

The Dish Network contract itself expires at the end of 2008, but at&t's longer business relationship with EchoStar, which offers the Dish Network service, probably is decisive.
DirecTV has to have anticipated the decision and has to be expected to roll out new channel and direct sales efforts early next year, to compensate for the loss of sales momentum from at&t.

It will have a lot of work to do. By some estimates, at&t accounted for an estimated 15.2 percent of DirecTV's gross additions but 58 percent of net subscriber growth. And though DirecTV probably will end 2007 with strong subscriber growth at the same level it saw in 2006, 2008 obviously will be more challenging.

Singapore will Structurally Separate NGN

Singapore is issuing a request for proposal to build a next-generation optical access network and has decided it will be built using a "structural separation" regime, where one company will build and own the access facilities and provide wholesale access to any retail provider that wants to use the network.

The RFP to construct the network will therefore provide for structural separation of the passive network operator from the retail service providers. If necessary, the government also is prepared to mandate open access provisions.

Put your finger in the air. The wind is blowing. As Bob Dylan once said: "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Android: It's the Business Models

The most important thing about Android, the open mobile operating system and platform sponsored by Google, is arguably not the technology or the implications for handset cost: it's the development of business models.

One might think: "well, this is open source, so we will look for business models that are like the existing models for open source." But that's probably not going to be the case. Today's revenue model for open source is payment for enhancements, support and training.

To some extent, the business model is implicit rather than explicit. If I am a hardware or software applications provider, I simply use Asterisk because it is a lower-cost way of implementing something that an end user actually buys, even it the thing being bought essentially is a "legacy" requirement.

Voice mail, phone system or messaging platform are examples. In those cases, the operating system is an input to a business model, but not the model, which is the same one that existed before the open source tool was available.

Translated into a mobile market, it looks different. Open source will not do much, in and of itself, to lower the cost of a handset. So open source doesn't necessarily mean "cheap or free handset."

One can assume handset makers using Android will stabilize their versions so there is little need for third party end user support. That is a bug, not a feature, in the mobile end user world.

And since the whole idea is "easy to use," there shouldn't be much of a market created for training people how to use, develop, maintain and upgrade their operating systems. End users don't want to do that.

Assuming Android devices are used on existing networks (the 700-MHz C band network remains a bit of a wild card), the pricing models for data access are relatively affordable already, so it isn't clear whether there is immediate impact on data plan pricing either.

So consider Android a better way to help create a mobile Web business. The mobile phone business is built on recurring payment of access fees for voice, text and data access. The mobile Web just assumes access.

So the revenue model must begin where the Web itself begins. And that means advertising, to the extent that features and content have to be monetized directly. Of course, there's also content and applications given away for free in hopes that the attention will lead to support for some other business model, be that public relations, consulting, marketing, software or what have you. In that case a content provider doesn't necessarily require a revenue model.

But that's not what service providers, device manufacturers and application providers are looking at. The issue is revenue. And from where I sit, that means a media model.

The media model includes "for fee" and "for free" services and content, with greater or lesser degrees of advertising support. That means "aggregating eyeballs" and "aggregating highly-detailed information about the owners of those eyeballs" and "tracking the behavior of those people." That makes the advertising model quite valuable.

In the mobile arena, valuable as in "can I entice you to visit Starbucks right now; it is around the corner?" Valuable as in "are you hungry and a lover of good Thai food? You are half a block away."

Some will speculate about whether an entirely ad-supported model is conceivable. Well, it's conceivable, but not likely. Broadband access isn't free. But that isn't the point. If the value is high enough, a reasonable fee is not a barrier to usage.

Android is more likely to have an impact in making the mobile Web, and applications built on the mobile Web, far easier to use and vastly richer in functionality.

That's a hugely important and economically significant activity. But I don't think Android is about "free phone calls" or "free Web access" or "free phones," as many either think or hope for. Rich applications will be reward enough for users, who are quite capable of figuring out a value-for-money proposition. Android is about the promise of a mobile Web so useful we won't mind paying access fees to use it.

The one exception is that some users will appreciate "sometimes" being able to use Wi-Fi hot spots to access applications. This is a subset of users who choose not to pay a recurring fee for fully-mobile access, and want to rely on Wi-Fi for all of their connectivity.

Then there are users who occasionally will be happy to have Wi-Fi access for signal strength reasons, even if they are comfortable with a fully-mobile broadband connection.

Still, it seems likely that the early pull of Android applications is going to be location-based. "Where am I? How do I get there? Where can I find it? I didn't know that was on sale. So that's where you are."

Ad-supported phone calls, devices or access might have some role to play, sometimes. But I doubt that's the big impact.