Telco Business Models Diverge

Until recently, most global communications providers had business models that were highly similar. These days, it is clear enough that providers are starting to differentiate, and that the future business will feature several to many different business models.

Four telco business models will exist in the future, says Forrester Research analyst Mike Cansfield. Some carriers will stick with the vertically integrated model of the past, because they still can make it work. You will tend to see this most frequently among the largest global carriers, with the biggest customer bases and very large bases of recurring revenue.

Others will move to a partnership-based model, where some functions previously conducted in-house are shifted to business partners. Smaller national carriers with moderate customer bases will frequently use this model, as will carriers making aggressive expansion moves outside their historic footprints.

Some might shift to a horizontal model, though Cansfield points out that no legacy telco has actually decided to do so. This approach has been tried by some new competitors though. Vanco, which knit together a global VPN capability, is one example.

In the United Kingdom, other new contestants have chosen this approach, including Tesco, the supermarket chain, as well as the U.K. Post Office, says Cansfield.

In the mobility space the mobile virtual network operator model uses the horizontal approach. No major established operators have yet shifted from a vertically-integrated model to the horizontal model, though in some respects the “functional separation” model or “structural separation” model is an example.

The disaggregated model likewise is mostly a concept at the moment, not a practical option.

The horizontal model splits the network from the retail business, but in the future it will be easier to consider, if not adopt, a very-disaggregated approach where different functions are assembled on a virtualized basis.

This is a sort of cloud computing or “software as a service” concept applied in a very big way and perhaps can be thought of as the partnership model on steroids.

This fourth variant is based on the premise that a telco has a choice, says Cansfield. Does it own, operate, and manage a network within a horizontal structure or not? If it decides on the latter, then it can choose to disaggregate itself and find partners/outsourcers that can provide more or less all things.

The issue for the latter three models is that ownership of access assets remains valuable, and most would likely say strategic. Ubiquitous wired access networks are so expensive there always will be few of them.

Spectrum rights likewise are relatively scarce and expensive to acquire. Most executives probably would agree ownership of such assets, when possible, confers clear business advantage that should not be disaggregated. Some executives in some countries do not have a choice, of course.

The vertically-integrated communication service provider model is not going away, Cansfield argues, though it will not be the only model. Some providers will largely be able to retain the traditional model, where one entity controls the channel; owns, operates, and manages the technology deployed (usually meaning fixed and mobile); and runs the underlying network that delivers services.

The reason is simply that the networking business remains one where scale economies exist, allowing a large provider to operate efficiently where smaller providers simply cannot. A large provider of services to wholesale customers, enterprise, smaller business and consumers can leverage investments across multiple customer segments where a smaller provider cannot.

So the former incumbents of the world clearly will be prominent users of this model. Still, it is more than a semantic shift to note that the network becomes a platform in the new model, not the center of the model. Software, content and many new applications partially created by end users will be key.

That said, scale in and of itself will prove necessary but not sufficient. Carriers still will have to leverage scale to meet customer demand better than other providers can.

The multiple models also will lead to changes in performance metrics. While traditional financial performance is key for all contestants, there are changes in the need to measure product profitability and network performance, Cansfield argues.

This might sound odd, but what he appears to mean is not so much that the profitability of any single application or service need not be measured, but rather that it should be increasingly possible to gain visibility into the real costs and real profit margin for any service when providers gain the increased visibility many of the models allow.

That isn’t to say any service provider can dispense with a need to measure network and element performance.

At the network layer, measures like jitter and latency will clearly remain important. But Cansfield says other operating metrics assume new importance.

Non-traditional measures such as time between “lead to cash” also are measures of effectiveness. Likewise, the time taken from order to receipt of payment; cost to serve, or discrete analysis of how much it really costs to provide service to a specific customer and cost per transaction are better measurements of provider effectiveness.

This approach will enable the telco to benchmark itself against Google rather than other “me-too” operators, he says.

Those types of analysis are easier when a service provider actually sources inputs from partners, as there is a measurable and discrete cost. The traditional problem with conducting analysis at this level is that the traditional vertically-integrated model requires “guessing”: costs largely are allocations. And allocations inherently are political, based on any number of formulas that may not reflect the actual cost to create a product, sell and support it.

Getting a better handle on transaction or sales costs also is required, so service providers can derive unit total costs per service, a key step in understanding and then maintaining profitability, Cansfield says.

That is important if one assumes that retail pricing for products will decline over time. If that happens, more efficient sales and provisioning mechanisms are needed.

Rather than just focusing on metrics like financials, network performance and customer retention, new metrics also are needed. Measures such as cost per transaction, discrete customer profitability, and returns from bundles become important, he says.

The changes are propelled by choices in revenue dynamics. “Only five years ago, voice revenues at British Telecom amounted to 45.4 percent of total revenues,” says Cansfield. “In 2007 and 2008, BT voice revenues accounted for 39.3 percent of the total.” And virtually nobody thinks the basic trend can be reversed, though many think it will stabilize at some point.

But some other changes suggest where the communications industry already is headed. “Communications is no longer a discrete sector,” says Cansfield. That might overstate the case, but it is the direction things are moving as we move from single-purpose networks to multi-purpose networks.

83% of Enterprises Have Deployed Unified Communications

About 83 percent of 745 North American enterprise and mid-market executives have unified communications capabilities in place, or are planning to, while 17 percent report they still are not interested, says Henry Dewing, Forrester Research analyst.

Web conferencing and collaboration services, though, are seen as a priority by 55 percent of SMB respondents, as well as storage and backup services, also seen as a priority by 55 percent of SMB respondents.

Integrated communications that unify voice, email and instant messaging are the most-wanted capabilities, with twice the number of executives saying that is important, compared to other features such as presence, integration with business applications, can conferencing capabilities.

That isn’t to say there is little or no interest in features such as desktop call control or mobile integration, but that demand for those features is about 2.5 times less important than unified handling of voice, email and IM traffic.

And while demand for specific features is relatively unevenly distributed, the business value drivers are fairly broadly distributed. Saving money, providing better customer service, improving communication flows and saving time all are cited as key values.

At a time of very-tight information technology budgets, more than a third of respondents say they are hiking spending on hardware, servers and desktop software. About 15 percent report they are increasing spending for managed UC services.

The situation at small and medium-sized businesses and organizations is a bit different, as you might suspect. Where 83 percent of enterprises have unified communications projects in place or in progress, only about 24 percent of SMBs say that is the case at their organizations.

And about 20 percent of SMB executives surveyed say they really have no interest in UC.

And though it seems logical to many of us that SMBs remain prime candidates for hosted services that avoid major capital investments, most SMB executives say they are more interested in premises-based solutions.

When asked how interested they are in buying a managed UC solution sometime in the next 12 months, 56 percent of SMB executives say they “are not interested.”

About 21 percent say they are “somewhat” interested while four percent say they are “very interested.” About 11 percent of SMB executives surveyed by Forrester Research say they currently are using a hosted UC solution.

So it appears industry advocates have some ways yet to go in convincing SMB executives that hosted UC solutions are a better approach than premises solutions.

Recent surveys of IP telephony adoption by SMBs have suggested a similar attitude towards hosted IP telephony as well. About a quarter of SMB executives say they would consider a hosted IP telephony solution, while about three quarters still say they would be more comfortable with a premises-based solution.

Call it habit, inertia or lack of trust. SMB executives still have not embraced hosted IP telephony at rates many of us expected. Some have suggested that fear about making a mistake with a mission critical tool is compounded by fear of choosing the wrong supplier.

Extreme fragmentation of the supplier base, as also is typical of the information technology support business, means no single name generally stands out—in the service provider space—as a “logical” supplier of IP telephony or unified communications.

On the other hand, buyers seem more familiar with the brand names of the firms supplying them phone systems, which then are likely vehicles for a move to IP telephony or unified communications as well.

So far, the hosted IP telephony industry does not seem to have tipped the scales, though one might argue that 25 percent penetration of the customer base for a relatively new solution is not shabby.

Is Rural Broadband Penetration Close to 100 Percent?

Is it possible that rural broadband penetration actually is pretty close to the penetration of Internet users? In other words, is it possible that use of broadband in rural areas now is close to 100 percent of Internet users?

New data from comScore suggests that might be closer to the truth than many believe. The latest estimates are that, in rural areas, broadband penetration is at 75 percent. If one assumes some rural users still use dial-up, that suggests perhaps 85 percent of rural households now use the Internet.

In 2007 the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service estimated that 63 percent of all rural households had at least one member access the Internet.

If rural broadband penetration now is up to 75 percent, as comScore indicates, that would imply that Internet usage is at least that high, in other words.

That would seem to have implications both for setting of national broadband policy and policy in rural areas. For starters, the new data suggest that rural broadband is growing robustly, without any additional government activity.

Some might argue that broadband usage remains lower in rural areas than in metro areas, and that remains true. Metro broadband penetration is at 89 percent. But virtually every study has shown that Internet usage also is lower in rural areas. The point? Lower Internet usage obviously means lower broadband access penetration.

One has to be careful with statistics, though. By definition, a household with no ability to access the Internet would not be an Internet-using household. So a better way to describe comScore’s findings are that, when wired facilities are available, rural households are buying broadband at rates not dissimilar to urban users.
That isn’t to say adoption is equal to urban rates, but that the gap is closing awfully fast.

Broadband penetration in U.S. rural areas increased 16 percent from 2007 to 2009, while metro area broadband penetration grew 11 percent, according to comScore.

In part, that is because rural markets have more room to grow. The analogy is wireless voice growth, which is highest in places such as India, China and Africa, where penetration is lowest.

“With low-speed DSL priced at about the same level as dial-up in many areas, there is little incentive for households to remain on dial-up,” says Brian Urutka, comScore VP.

Rural markets with a population less than 10,000 grew broadband penetration by 16 percentage points. Areas with population between 10,000-50,000 grew penetration 14 percentage points while metropolitan areas with populations of 50,000 or more grew penetration by 11 percentage points.

Critics sometimes say that even if access is not a problem, access speeds are, and that is an argument that makes sense. The issue there, though, quite often is the “middle mile” trunking between major points of presence and the actual rural communities.

Basically, the problem is not the Internet backbones, and not even so much the local access networks, as it is the trunking network to backhaul traffic to the Internet PoPs. Many rural ISPs find, for example, that they have access to a T1 or two T1s in the middle mile. That makes it tough to deliver faster broadband access to customers on the local access networks, for obvious reasons.

The Internet backbone is a firehouse. So are the access networks, for the most part. But the middle mile is a straw.

Solve the middle-mile problem and broadband access probably ceases to be an issue in many communities. Yonder Media CEO Craig Vallarino estimates that half the cost of building fixed wireless networks in rural areas is in the core network and middle mile.

The radio infrastructure represents about 20 percent of cost while customer premises investment represents about 30 percent of cost. In other words, it isn’t the access infrastructure which is the main investment barrier: the middle mile is.

That said, there still will be some locations so isolated that only a satellite connection really will ever make sense.

What Has Changed Since 2000

A few statistics will illustrate just how much has changed in the global telecom business since 2000. Prior to the turn of the century, most lines in service used wires and carried voice.

By 2007, 74 percent of all lines in service used wireless access or carried data, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Mobile alone in 2007 accounted for 61 percent of all subscriptions while standard phone lines have dropped to 26 percent. And the change has come swiftly: in just seven years.

Mobile revenues now account for nearly half of all telecommunication revenues—41 percent in 2007—up from 22 percent 10 years earlier.

Along with the change in access methods and applications is the sheer number of connections. The total number of fixed, mobile and broadband subscriptions in the member nations of the OECD grew to 1.6 billion in 2007, compared to a population within the OECD nations of just over one billion inhabitants.

To put that in perspective, consider that there were seven access paths in use in 2007 for every access path in use in 1980. That includes broadband, wireless and voice connections.

To put those figures in even greater perspective, consider that the percentage of household budgets devoted to communication expenses has climbed only slightly over the last 10 years. In most OECD countries, households generally spend about 2.2 percent and 2.5 percent of household income on communications, year in and year out, though one can note a slow rise since 1998.

The big exception is Japan, where household spending on communications is close to seven percent of household income. That might be something to keep in mind when making cross-national comparisons. It is true that Japan has very-fast broadband and has pioneered any number of mobile application innovations.

But Japanese households spend very close to three times as much as U.S. households on their overall communications. That’s worth keeping in mind. It always is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between nations.

Generally speaking, though, OECD consumers have added seven new connections for every existing connection in 1980, while spending about the same percentage of their incomes on those services. That’s an obvious example of an explosion of productivity.

Much has changed in the Internet access realm as well. Broadband is now the dominant fixed access method in all OECD countries. In 2005, dial-up connections still accounted for 40 percent of fixed Internet connections but just two years later that percentage had fallen to 10 percent.

Also, while many criticize the industry for retarding innovation and behaving as “nasty monopolists,” prices have tended to fall for virtually all communication services on all platforms.

“Over the previous 18 years, residential users saw the real price of residential fixed-linephone service fall roughly one percent per year while business prices fell 2.5 percent per year,” the OECD says.

Mobile subscribers also benefitted from declining prices between 2006 and 2008. The average price of OECD “mobile baskets,” representing a number of calls and messages per year that normalizes features and prices, fell by 21 percent for low usage, 28 percent for medium usage and 32 percent for the heaviest users over the two-year period.

User voice behavior also has changed. The number of minutes of communication per mobile phone is increasing while the minutes on fixed networks are decreasing. In other words, the mobile is becoming for most people the primary voice device while the landline is a backup.

Some might argue that ultimately has implications for pricing. In some real ways, the mobile is the “premium” device and a landline represents a supplemental service. That probably means the value is such that consumers ultimately will think it should be priced as a backup service.

Data between 2005 and 2007 suggest people are making fewer domestic calls on the fixed network in most countries, OECD says. When people do use fixed networks they are increasingly making calls to users of mobile phones.

This trend is well highlighted by Austria where the introduction of flat-rate voice telephony on mobile networks has shifted calls away from the fixed-line network. Voice traffic on Telekom Austria’s fixed network fell 13.3 percent in 2007 as a result of the shift to mobile
communications.

There was an OECD monthly average of 272 minutes of outgoing calls on fixed line telephones in 2007. This is down 32 minutes per month from 2005.

But there was an interesting landline rebound trend appearing recently in a number of OECD countries.

The number of PSTN minutes per line declined until 2005 when the numbers started rising again. For example, French minutes per PSTN line fell until 2004 when they started to increase.

One explanation is the shift in France to flat-rate national calls offered by a number of carriers. That suggests U.S. landline voice providers might stem some of the traffic erosion by offering aggressive, flat-rate, all-distance services within the domestic market, as VoIP providers generally do.

On the mobile side, the OECD average number of outgoing minutes of completed calls on mobile networks was 220 minutes per month in 2007, up 56 percent from 2005.

Subscribers in the United States make far more outgoing calls on mobile phones each month than any other country in the OECD. The average number of minutes per mobile subscription was 443 in 2007, more than double the OECD average. One might argue that is because of the reasonable cost of calling great distances. In Europe, many calls that would be domestic in the United States are international calls.

Broadband prices have fallen as well over the same time. OECD broadband prices declined significantly over the previous three years. Prices declined an average of 14 percent per year for DSL and 15 percent for cable between 2005 and 2008.

The average price of a low-speed connection (2 megabits per second or less downstream) was $32 per month in September 2008. At the other end of the scale, broadband connections with download speeds advertised as faster than 30 megabits per second averaged $45 per month.

Despite the falling price-per-unit trends, telecommunications services, about a trillion dollar market in the OECD, continues to grow at about a six-percent annual rate. That remains to be tested as we finish 2009, but there is reasonable historic precedent for continued growth, though perhaps not at a six-percent rate.

Regarding voice and new mobile and data services, we might as well note that landline voice appears to be a product like any other. That is to say, like any other product, it has a product life cycle.

To be specific, wireline voice looks like a product in its declining phase. Optical fiber-based broadband looks like a product earlier in its cycle, with 56 percent compound annual growth since 2005.

Digital subscriber line and cable modem services likely are further along their curves. DSL grew at a compounded rate of 21 percent per year while cable modem service grew at 18 percent rates between 2005 and 2007.

Mobile voice markets grew by 10 percent each year since 2005 but may be nearing saturation levels in a number of OECD markets. Mobile broadband clearly is early in its product life cycle.

Analog lines, used for voice, facsimile and dial-up Internet access, also seem to be in decline. The number of analog subscribers fell by 34 million between 2005 and 2007.

The decline of Internet dial-up services also means that many households no longer need a second analog line. The same might be true for in-home fax machines. And many additional lines once used by teenagers now have been replaced by mobiles.

Finally, the number of “mobile-only” subscribers has increased as well.

The penetration rate for fixed telephone lines (analog and ISDN) in 2007 was 41 subscribers per 100 inhabitants, which was less than the penetration rate ten years earlier.

Overall, the penetration rate rose from 43 percent in 1996 to a maximum of 47 percent in 2000, only to decline again to 41 percent in 2007. The year 2000 appears to be the turning point in the technological life cycle of fixed-line telephony.

Canada had the highest fixed-line penetration in 2007 with a penetration rate of 54 subscribers for every 100 inhabitants. Sweden, Luxembourg and the United States all

had penetration rates greater than 50 per 100 inhabitants. Mexico, the Slovak Republic and Poland had the lowest penetration rates in 2007.

There’s an interesting observation we can make about those figures. Nobody seems to argue that the United States has a big problem with voice service availability. In fact, availability is not the issue: consumer demand is the issue. One doesn’t hear people complaining about the lack of voice availability in Canada or Sweden. But penetration is in the 50 percent range, per capita.

Nearly all Internet users in the United States use broadband, not dial-up. And yet broadband penetration might well be higher than voice penetration, on that score. People who want the product generally buy it.

That said, there are some methodological issues here. “Per capita” measures might not make as much sense, as a comparative tool, when median household sizes vary. Adoption by households, adjusted to include people who use the Internet only at work or at public locations, or using mobiles, would be better.

Broadband adoption, by people who actually use the Internet, might make the most sense of all. Broadband is a product like any other. Not every consumer values every product to the same degree.

DSL network coverage is greater than 90 percent in 22 of the 30 OECD countries. Belgium, Korea, Luxembourg and the Netherlands report 100 percent.

Cable coverage is extensive in some countries such as the United States (96 percent) and Luxembourg (70 percent), but non-existent in others such as Greece, Iceland and Italy.

An analysis which followed the evolution of broadband plans over four years shows that speeds increased by 28 percent for DSL and 72 percent for cable on average between 2007 and 2008.

A survey of 613 broadband offers covering all OECD countries shows the average advertised speed grew between 2007 and 2008 across all platforms except for fiber. The average advertised DSL speed increased 25 percent from 9.3 Mbps in 2007 to 11.5 Mbps in 2008.

Advertised speed of course is not user-experienced speed at all times of day. Still, it offers some measure of changes in the product.

The average advertised fiber speed actually declined between 2007 and 2008 as operators introduced new entry-level offers at speeds below 100 Mbps.

For example, Dansk Broadband in Denmark offers symmetric broadband offers over fiber at speeds between 512 kbps and 100 Mbps.

The average fixed wireless offer in 2008 was 3 Mbps, up from 1.8 Mbps just a year earlier.

Fixed wireless speeds grew by 64 percent but remain only one-quarter of the average advertised speeds of DSL providers. The average cable offer is five times faster.

There are some insights about mobile broadband in the OECD’s analysis. The amount of data traffic carried over mobile networks remains small in relation to other broadband data networks.

For example, Telstra in Australia reported in a 2008 investor briefing that data consumption increased from 100 kilobytes per month per user in 2007 to 250 kilobytes in 2008. Compare that to the gigabytes consumed on landline connections.

Data from the Netherlands also show relatively low data traffic in the first half of 2008.

Between January and June 2008, Dutch mobile broadband subscribers downloaded 358 gigabytes over mobile networks.

It is possible to calculate an estimate of mobile data traffic per 3G subscriber per month in the Netherlands by making a few assumptions. If the ratio of 3G to total mobile subscriptions in the Netherlands is equivalent to the OECD average of 18 percent, then the average amount of data traffic per 3G subscription per month in the Netherlands works out to be only 18 kilobytes per month.

Of 52 mobile broadband packages evaluated in September 2008, the average headline speed was 2.5 Mbps. Subscribers to these plans were allowed an average of 4.5 gigabytes of data traffic per month.

Much has changed in the global telecommunications business in just seven years. Landline voice might still provide the revenue mainstay, but it is a product in the declining stages of its life cycle.

Even mobile voice, DSL and cable modem service are products at something like the peak of their cycles.
Mobile broadband and optical fiber access are early in their product life cycles. Mobility is becoming the preferred way of consuming voice communications.

That’s an awful lot of change in just seven years. And we haven’t even discussed VoIP, over-the-top applications, content or video.

How to Save Newspapers, Maybe

Newspaper readership has been declining for decades. Proposals to have the government subsidize them seem not only dangerous (the press is supposed to be a watchdog for the people against the power of the government) but stupid. Should we subsidize the telegraph because everybody uses telephones, mobiles, IM, SMS, microblogging and blogging to send messages?

Distribution channels and formats change over time. So does media. I don't know whether this is the answer. But it's interesting.

The Way to Deal with an Outage

Communications network outages occur more often than most users realize. When they do, the only way to respond, beyond restoration as rapidly as possible, is apologize. Quite often, perhaps most of the time, it also helps to explain what happened.

Junction Networks, for example, had an unexpected outage Oct. 26, 2009 for about an hour and a half, and the company's apology and explanation is a good example of what to do when the inevitable outage does occur. First, apologize.

"We do sincerely apologize for this service interruption. We know that you have many choices for your phone service, and we deeply appreciate your patience and understanding during yesterday's interruption of service. Below are the full details of the service issue."

Then remind users where they can get information if an outage ever occurs again.

"One of the first things we do when a service issue occurs is update our Network Alert Blog and Twitter page with as much information as we have at that time. We then post comments to that original post as we learn more. Our Network Alert blog is here: http://www.junctionnetworks.com/blog/category/network-alerts"

"Our Twitter account is: http://www.twitter.com/onsip."

Junction Networks then provides a detailed description of its normal maintenance activities, which can cause "planned outages" with an intentional shift to backup systems.

"As a rule, Junction Networks maintains three different types of maintenance windows:
1.) Weekend - early morning: The maintenance performed will produce a service disruption and could affect multiple systems.
2.) Weekday - early morning: The maintenance performed may produce a service disruption, but is isolated to a single system.
3.) Intra-day: The work performed should not affect our customers.
All maintenance, even that which is known to cause a service disruption, is not expected to cause a disruption for more than a few fractions of a second. For anything that would cause a more serious disruption (one second or more), backup services are swapped in to take the place of the maintenance system."

The company then explains why the specific Oct. 26 outage happened, in some detail, and then the remedies it applied.

Nobody likes outages, but they are a fact of life. If you think about it, there is a very simple reason. Consider today's electronic devices, designed to work with only minutes to hours to several days worth of "outages" each year. If you've ever had to reboot a device, that's an outage. If you've ever had software "hang," requiring a reboot, that's an outage.

Now imagine the number of normally reliable devices that have to be connected in series to complete any point-to-point communications link. That's the number of applications running, on the servers, switches, routers and gateways, on the active opto-electronics in all networks that must be connected for any single point-to-point session to occur.

Don't forget the power supplies, power grid, air conditioners and potential accidents that can take a session out. If a backhaul cuts an optical line, you get an outage. If a car knocks down a telephone pole, you can get an outage.

Now remember your mathematics. Any number less than "one," when multiplied by any other number less than "one," necessarily results in a number that is smaller than the original quantity. In other words, as one concatenates many devices, each individually quite reliable, the reliability or availability of the whole system gets worse.

A single device with 99-percent reliability is expected to fail 3 days, 15 hours and 40 minutes every year. But that's just one device. If any session has 50 possible devices in series, each with that same 99-percent reliability, the system as a whole is reliable only as the multiplied availabilities of each discrete device.

In other words, you have to multiple a number less than "one" by 49 other numbers, each less than "one," to determine overall system reliability.

As an example, consider a system of just 12 devices, each 99.99 percent reliable, and expected to fail about 52 minutes, 36 seconds each year. The whole network would then be expected to fail about 10.5 hours each year.

Networks with less reliability than 99.99 percent or with more discrete elements will fail for longer periods of time.

The point is that outages can be minimized, but not prevented entirely. Knowing that, one might as well have a process in place for the times when service is disrupted.

Palm Pre, iPhone, MyTouch, Droid Compared

Here's one way of comparing some of the latest smartphones, put together by BillShrink.com. One thought comes to mind, when looking at "unsubsidized" cost of these devices.

(Click image for larger view.)

Some users do not apparently like contracts, even if those contracts provide lower handset prices. They should be able to buy their handsets "unlocked" if they choose.

But lots of users, contemplating smartphone prices almost the same as notebooks and PCs, might well prefer the contracts, to get lower handset prices, just as most people say they "hate" commercials but will put up with a certain amount of commercials if it means "free" content access.

In a world that is "one size fits none" rather than "one size fits all," it seems to run counter to consumer preferences to ban any lawful commercial offer. Let people make their own decisions.

On the other hand, if you want to see a dramatic deceleration in smartphone adoption, with all the application innovation that is coming along with those devices, watch what happens if contracts that subsidize handset costs are outlawed.