Friday, November 27, 2009
Gartner Drops "Unified Communications" from 2010 "Top 10" List
Unified communications, which was on Gartner's "top 10" trends list for 2009, has been dropped from the 2010 list, which moves "cloud computing" to the top spot.
People will disagree about what that means, but no trend remains "top of mind" forever. Nor is the ranking an indication that UC is unimportant, simply that it might not be among the most-important priorities for the coming year.
It might simply indicate that most enterprises have figured out what they want to do, for the moment.
It might indicate that computing architecture, and issues related to computing architecture, which always are top concerns for enterprise IT staffs, once again have moved to the forefront, and that "voice" issues related to IP telephony are largely in an advanced stage of deployment.
In fact, four of the top-six issues are directly related to remote computing capabilities.
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Users Say They Want ISPs Offering Both Wireless and Fixed Broadband
There are some heartening implications for service providers able to offer both mobile and fixed broadband access, and disturbing implications for providers who do not have such capabilities, in a new survey of 1,000 consumers conducted by the Yankee Group.
Specifically, more than 60 percent of survey respondents indicate a strong interest in mobile Internet, and 45 percent state that for their next broadband purchase they will choose an ISP that offers mobile service.
Specifically, more than 60 percent of survey respondents indicate a strong interest in mobile Internet, and 45 percent state that for their next broadband purchase they will choose an ISP that offers mobile service.
Labels:
broadband,
mobile broadband
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Do Usage Caps for Wireless and Mobile Broadband Make Sense?
Consumers say 60 percent of the wireless broadband decision is based on two factors: monthly recurring charge and existence or size of a usage cap. For that reason, "data caps" are a particularly unfriendly way to manage overall traffic, says Yankee Group analyst Philip Marshall.
A better approach, from a service provider perspective, is to offer unlimited usage and then manage traffic usingreal-time, network intelligence-based solutions like deep packet inspection and policy enforcement, Marshall argues.
Some would argue that fair use policies that throttle maximum speeds when policies are violated is no picnic, either. But temporary limits on consumption, only at peak hours of usage, arguably is more consumer friendly than absolute caps with overage charges.
To test consumer preferences, Yankee Group conducted a custom survey that included a "choice-based conjoint analysis," which allowed Yankee Group analysts to estimate the relative importance to consumers of key wireless broadband service attributes. The survey was taken by 1,000 mobile consumers who also use broadband access services.
From the conjoint analysis, "we found that, on average, 59 percent of a wireless broadband purchase decision depends on two factors: service price, and the presence or absence of a 2 GByte per month usage cap," Marshall says.
The results also indicate that 14.5 percent of a typical purchase decision is affected by service bandwidth, and that the implied average revenue per user lift when increasing bandwidth from 768 Kbps to 2 Mbps ranges between $5 and $10 per month.
The results also indicate, however, that there are diminishing returns for service plans that offer speeds above 3 Mbps, though speed increases might be useful for other reasons, such as competitive positioning.
"Our price elasticity analysis implies that consumers are willing to pay $25 to $30 more per month for plans that offer unlimited usage, compared to plans that have a 2 GBytes a month usage cap," says Marshall.
"In a competitive operating environment, consumers will tend to migrate toward higher bandwidth services, all else being equal, but they are not necessarily willing to pay a significant premium for the added performance capability," says Marshall.
Our most recent survey results indicate that consumers require 2 Mbps to 3 Mbps bandwidth for their broadband service. This is likely to increase dramatically over the next two to three years, but the consumer survey suggests dramatically-higher bandwidth does not affect decisions as much as recurring price and existence of bandwidth caps.
For example, when offered a choice between one package featuring a 2 GByte per month usage cap with 6 Mbps bandwidth, and another package with unlimited monthly usage but just 2 Mbps service speed, 63 percent of consumers opted for the 2 Mbps service with no cap.
Even when the choice is between an unlimited package offering only 768 Kbps bandwidth, compared to an alternative plan with 6 Mbps bandwidth and a 2 GByte per month usage cap, 57 percent preferred the 768 kbps package.
Service providers still must manage bandwidth demand though, with or without usage caps
Usage caps work to regulate demand, but users do not like them.
The other approach is not to impose the usage caps, but instead to use policy managment and deep packet inspection to manage traffic flows.
If such solutions are implemented in a non-discriminatory manner, so that all like services are treated equally, they can be implemented irrespective of network neutrality regimes currently under consideration, Marshall believes.
Labels:
bandwidth caps,
broadband plan,
network neutrality,
regulation
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Small Business Commits to Social Media, Email, Search
About 75 percent of small businesses will increase their spending on email marketing in 2010, while nearly 70 percent will spend more on social media, according to VerticalResponse.
The findings might not suggest small businesses are spending wildly. In most cases the firms likely are testing new media. But the testing seems very widespread.
Almost all businesses with 500 or fewer employees will use email marketing next year, the company says. Only 3.8 percent of small business executives say they will not be using email marketing in 2010.
More than 70 percent also indicated they would not use TV or radio advertising.
Search advertising is used by about 72 percent of small businesses, but banner advertising is used by about 40 percent of small businesses, VerticalResponse says.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well as other social media sites, are used by about 78 percent of small businesses, the firm says.
The findings might not suggest small businesses are spending wildly. In most cases the firms likely are testing new media. But the testing seems very widespread.
Almost all businesses with 500 or fewer employees will use email marketing next year, the company says. Only 3.8 percent of small business executives say they will not be using email marketing in 2010.
More than 70 percent also indicated they would not use TV or radio advertising.
Search advertising is used by about 72 percent of small businesses, but banner advertising is used by about 40 percent of small businesses, VerticalResponse says.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well as other social media sites, are used by about 78 percent of small businesses, the firm says.
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Best Buy Sells Phone Power Nationwide
Best Buy now is distributing the "Phone Power" VoIP service nationwide. That's a pretty big boost for any retailer, and especially so for an independent VoIP provider aware that the market is consolidating and that scale is sorely needed.
Phone Power costs $19.95 per month with no contract, $16.95 with a one-year contract and $14.95 for a two-year contract. The service offers unlimited calling within the United States and Canada and 60 international minutes in 88 countries.
The Best Buy offering includes a two-line home adapter as well as a USB travel adapter. It sells for $79.95, and comes with a $79.95 instant service credit to be applied when the customer activates service on an eligible one or two year service plan.
It isn't clear yet whether Best Buy also will be actively selling Phone Power business packages, which come in both multi-line and single-line versions, offering unlimited inbound calling and 5,000 minutes of outbound calling with auto-attendant feature, and other popular business features, included on multi-line packages.
Phone Power costs $19.95 per month with no contract, $16.95 with a one-year contract and $14.95 for a two-year contract. The service offers unlimited calling within the United States and Canada and 60 international minutes in 88 countries.
The Best Buy offering includes a two-line home adapter as well as a USB travel adapter. It sells for $79.95, and comes with a $79.95 instant service credit to be applied when the customer activates service on an eligible one or two year service plan.
It isn't clear yet whether Best Buy also will be actively selling Phone Power business packages, which come in both multi-line and single-line versions, offering unlimited inbound calling and 5,000 minutes of outbound calling with auto-attendant feature, and other popular business features, included on multi-line packages.
Labels:
Best Buy,
business VoIP,
consumer VoIP
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Apple And Android Dominate U.S. Smartphone Web Traffic
It is starting to look like just two smartphone platforms "matter" where it comes to use of the mobile Web: the Apple iPhone and the Android devices, a new analysis by AdMob suggests.
AdMob’s October, 2009 measurements show that the iPhone/iPod Touch and Android phones account for 75 percent of mobile Web traffic in the United States.
Apple devices continue to dominate, with 55 percent share, but Android users in October represented 20 percent of all activity, up from 17 percent in September, 2009.
The iPhone and iPod Touch grew their share from 48 percent to 55 percent share over the same period.
The Blackberry ’s mobile Web traffic share went down from 14 percent to 12 percent, and Palm’s webOS shrank from 10 percent to five percent.
On a global basis, the iPhone operating system now accounts for 50 percent of all mobile traffic, up from 43 percent the month before.
Android has an 11 percent global share, which makes it third globally after Nokia/Symbian’s 25 percent share.
Since Verizon launched the Droid about two weeks ago, Droids now make up 24 percent of all Android mobile Web traffic. The HTC Dream, which is the oldest Android device on the market, is the only Android device with more share, at 36 percent of Android traffic. Give it a few more weeks. The Droid is shaping up to be the most-popular Android device so far.
The data suggests that the BlackBerry, though a worthy enterprise device, continues to lag as a smartphone choice for users whose key applications lean to the Web.
AdMob’s October, 2009 measurements show that the iPhone/iPod Touch and Android phones account for 75 percent of mobile Web traffic in the United States.
Apple devices continue to dominate, with 55 percent share, but Android users in October represented 20 percent of all activity, up from 17 percent in September, 2009.
The iPhone and iPod Touch grew their share from 48 percent to 55 percent share over the same period.
The Blackberry ’s mobile Web traffic share went down from 14 percent to 12 percent, and Palm’s webOS shrank from 10 percent to five percent.
On a global basis, the iPhone operating system now accounts for 50 percent of all mobile traffic, up from 43 percent the month before.
Android has an 11 percent global share, which makes it third globally after Nokia/Symbian’s 25 percent share.
Since Verizon launched the Droid about two weeks ago, Droids now make up 24 percent of all Android mobile Web traffic. The HTC Dream, which is the oldest Android device on the market, is the only Android device with more share, at 36 percent of Android traffic. Give it a few more weeks. The Droid is shaping up to be the most-popular Android device so far.
The data suggests that the BlackBerry, though a worthy enterprise device, continues to lag as a smartphone choice for users whose key applications lean to the Web.
Labels:
Android,
BlackBerry,
Droid,
iPhone,
mobile Web,
smart phone
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Why Isn't All Voice Free?
"When I wrote a story about various VoIP initiatives a decade ago, nearly every expert I spoke to spouted the same prediction: within 10 years, all phone calls will be free," says John Dvorak, PC magazine columnist. "The rationale behind the pronouncement was that the wires and systems used for phone calls will eventually be used to transfer data, just like everything else."
"You don't get charged for visiting a Web page, so why get charged for making a phone call, if both are essentially data?" he muses.
It's an old argument, but is akin to asking why a diamond, made of carbon, is worth more than a thimble's worth of oil, also made of carbon, or a tiny cube of apple.
The answer to the question of different incremental pricing or costs to use network features has little to do with the representation of symbols and everything to do with larger permissible business models mandated by government entities.
In a legal and regulatory sense, bits are never "just bits." Cable TV bits are regulated differently from voice bits that touch the "public phone network," while Internet bits are regulated differently from each of those other types of bits and from private network data.
Still, it is one thing to argue that use of communications or other bits may not impose an incremental cost to a user. That is not to say there are not specific costs associated with use of the bits. Google Voice might not charge an end user for completing a specific call. But there are actual costs, imposed by the regulatory regime. Google pays them, not the end user.
But that does not mean the call has no cost, only that the cost is indirectly paid.
As for why others, besides Skype, other instantt messaging-based call providers, have not moved more aggressively to offer various forms of "no incremental cost to offer" calling, financial interests are involved as they always are.
One might as well ask why no-incremental cost education, music, video, books or plane tickets are not available.
In 1977, for example, long distance calling represented about half of all U.S. telephone company revenue. By 2007, that was no longer true. Instead, wireless services had taken the place long distance once played in underpinning the whole business. That isn't to say long distance has dropped to insignificance. It remains important. It is to say that there must be some revenue model underpinning the business, and if it is not long distance or voice, it will be something else.
No, there is no mystery about why VoIP has not lead, over the last 10 years, to "universally-free" (no incremental cost to end user) voice calls. Voice, though declining, remains a key underpinning of the carrier business model. Nor do government regulators permit "free to end user" calling between networks.
Google Voice might not charge a U.S. user for a U.S.-terminated call. But Google Voice is compensating the terminating networks for use of their networks. Google Voice envisions a different business model for domestic calling than "per minute" use of the network. Lack of end user charges does not mean "terminating minutes" do not carry costs.
That, in fact, is behind Google Voice's blocking of some numbers, in some high-cost exchanges. And those charges are radically higher. Some firms report that the high-cost termination charges are as much as 25 times higher than typical.
"You don't get charged for visiting a Web page, so why get charged for making a phone call, if both are essentially data?" he muses.
It's an old argument, but is akin to asking why a diamond, made of carbon, is worth more than a thimble's worth of oil, also made of carbon, or a tiny cube of apple.
The answer to the question of different incremental pricing or costs to use network features has little to do with the representation of symbols and everything to do with larger permissible business models mandated by government entities.
In a legal and regulatory sense, bits are never "just bits." Cable TV bits are regulated differently from voice bits that touch the "public phone network," while Internet bits are regulated differently from each of those other types of bits and from private network data.
Still, it is one thing to argue that use of communications or other bits may not impose an incremental cost to a user. That is not to say there are not specific costs associated with use of the bits. Google Voice might not charge an end user for completing a specific call. But there are actual costs, imposed by the regulatory regime. Google pays them, not the end user.
But that does not mean the call has no cost, only that the cost is indirectly paid.
As for why others, besides Skype, other instantt messaging-based call providers, have not moved more aggressively to offer various forms of "no incremental cost to offer" calling, financial interests are involved as they always are.
One might as well ask why no-incremental cost education, music, video, books or plane tickets are not available.
In 1977, for example, long distance calling represented about half of all U.S. telephone company revenue. By 2007, that was no longer true. Instead, wireless services had taken the place long distance once played in underpinning the whole business. That isn't to say long distance has dropped to insignificance. It remains important. It is to say that there must be some revenue model underpinning the business, and if it is not long distance or voice, it will be something else.
No, there is no mystery about why VoIP has not lead, over the last 10 years, to "universally-free" (no incremental cost to end user) voice calls. Voice, though declining, remains a key underpinning of the carrier business model. Nor do government regulators permit "free to end user" calling between networks.
Google Voice might not charge a U.S. user for a U.S.-terminated call. But Google Voice is compensating the terminating networks for use of their networks. Google Voice envisions a different business model for domestic calling than "per minute" use of the network. Lack of end user charges does not mean "terminating minutes" do not carry costs.
That, in fact, is behind Google Voice's blocking of some numbers, in some high-cost exchanges. And those charges are radically higher. Some firms report that the high-cost termination charges are as much as 25 times higher than typical.
Labels:
business model,
business VoIP,
consumer VoIP,
regulation
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Zoom Wants to Become a "Digital Twin Equipped With Your Institutional Knowledge"
Perplexity and OpenAI hope to use artificial intelligence to challenge Google for search leadership. So Zoom says it will use AI to challen...
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
One recurring issue with forecasts of multi-access edge computing is that it is easier to make predictions about cost than revenue and infra...