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?