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.

Wal-Mart Gets into the Mobile Phone Business

Competition in the voice business is about to get more heated, as Wal-Mart now says it will be a  retailer of mobile phone service, partnering with American Movil to sell low-cost service pre-paid service under the "Straight Talk" brand. The company is offering unlimited voice and text minutes for $45 a month, or 1,000 minutes and 1,000 text messages for $30 a month.

AT&T just introduced a new $60 a month pre-paid service under its "GoPhone" brand with unlimited U.S. voice calls and unlimited text messaging to the U.S., Mexico, Canada and more than 100 other countries.

The plan includes unlimited IM picture and video messages. The service does not require a contract, and offers a range of full keyboard devices.

And AT&T recently reevaluated its position on use of Skype from its Apple iPhones, using the mobile network, not just Wi-Fi.

All the moves show the intensified competition in the prepaid wireless segment, one of the few areas of untapped growth for mobile providers.

Still, the new activity around voice pricing only accentuates the on-going trend, which is that voice, though the historic driver of revenue for mobile and fixed providers, will not be the driver in the future.

As JP Morgan analyst Mike McCormack notes, voice accounts for $50-$60 of the $95 in monthly revenue generated by the typical iPhone user. If the average user were to drop AT&T’s unlimited voice plan ($99.99 a month) in favor of its cheapest ($39.99 a month), the carrier could lose upward of 20 percent to 33 percent of its voice revenue, at least from iPhone users.

In the past, industry executives accurately could say they were in the telephone or voice business. That won't work in the future, when they primarily will be in the communications business, with significant operations in the content and application businesses as well.

Peer-to-peer Wi-Fi: Bluetooth Killer?

A new peer-to-peer Wi-Fi specification sponsored by the Wi-Fi Alliance will enable Wi-Fi devices to connect to one another directly without joining a traditional home, office, or hotspot network. 

The Wi-Fi Alliance expects to begin certification for this new specification in mid-2010 and products which achieve the certification will be designated "Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Wi-Fi Direct."

The specification can be implemented in any Wi-Fi device, from mobile phones, cameras, printers, and notebook computers, to human interface devices such as keyboards and headphones. 

Significantly, devices that have been certified to the new specification will also be able to create connections with hundreds of millions of Wi-Fi CERTIFIED legacy devices already in use. 

Devices will be able to make a one-to-one connection, or a group of several devices can connect simultaneously.

The specification targets both consumer electronics and enterprise applications, provides management features for enterprise environments, and includes WPA2 security. Devices that support the specification will be able to discover one another and advertise available services.  

Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Wi-Fi Direct devices will support typical Wi-Fi ranges and the same data rates as can be achieved with an infrastructure connection, so devices can connect from across a home or office and conduct bandwidth-hungry tasks with ease.   

Though some might fear the specification will damage sales of Wi-Fi access points, the new P2P networking technique seems more a threat to near-field standards such as Bluetooth. For some applications, such as file sharing, the extended Wi-Fi range will make it a better option than Bluetooth for public near-field communications, for example. 

Such proximity marketing techniques sometimes are used to allow users to interact with electronic billboards, for example. P2P Wi-Fi ought to be easier to use, and also will have greater range.