Users Prefer Flat-Rate Pricing. Duh!

Mobile internet users across the United Kingdom and United States prefer flat-rate pricing, a new survey by YouGov has found. That finding should surprise nobody in the U.S. market, given the development of the whole Internet access business since AOL dropped metered billing and went to flat rate packaging.

Unsurprisingly, respondents said they would use the mobile Web more if flat rate access is available. That does not necessarily suggest consumers would reject flat-rate plans that are tiered for usage, even if any rational consumer would say they prefer a low flat rate for unlimited usage.

Smartphone users might be used to low rate, unlimited access, but users of mobile PC dongles and cards are well accustomed to the idea that usage and price are related for "buckets" of usage.

Some 4,324 consumers,18 or older, were polled as part of the study.

In the United Kingdom, 33 percent of respondents  reported that they don't use the Internet despite having access on their phone, while 25 percent of U.S. respondents with an Internet-ready phone say they do not use that feature.

The study also found that users want Web sites and services optimized for their specific mobile device, especially if it means that they could more quickly access the services they want. About 32 percent of respondents say that would increase their usage.

About 51 per cent of all respondents said they were only prepared to spend up to three minutes surfing for a specific piece of content on their phones, emphasizing the importance of navigation and usability.

About 13 percent of U.K. users, and 17 percent of U.S. respondents now access the Internet more than once a day from their phones. About 27 per cent of U.K. consumers and 28 percent of U.S. consumers surveyed now use the mobile Internet at least once a week, if not more.

$1 TV Episodes for iPad?

Apple could begin selling U.S. television shows for $1, half of its charge on its iTunes digital media store, on the iPad, the Financial Times reports. If Apple does so, it would mean at least some U.S. content owners have decided to take the gamble of offsetting lower retail price points with higher sales.

As powerful as "free" might be for many products, $1 likewise has proven to be an enormously
successful price point for mobile application store downloads, for example. Also, Redbox DVD
rentals are priced at $1, and that price point has been gaining traction.

Apple has been selling TV episodes for about $2 each on its iTunes store, while high-definition fare that displays well on a TV set sells for $3 an episode.

Video entertainment has been a big part of thinking about what new market the iPad might be able to create, between the smartphone and the notebook or netbook PC.

Apple also has been in discussions with content owners about a “best of TV” subscription service, perhaps offered at about $30 a month, that hopefully would create a new niche in the market as well, more than one-off downloads and streaming but less than the full channel line-up that customers can buy from cable, satellite or telco providers.

The trick, of course, is to create a new niche that does not automaticaly cannibalize the value of other existing channels. That is likely one reason why Apple has not tried to create a subscription TV service for its Apple TV device.

Send SMS Messages to Multiple Recipients Using Google Voice

One of the differences between email and texting, aside from the SMS character limitation, is sending a single message to multiple recipients. Google Voice now allows such multi-party text messages.

Users just click on the SMS button at the top of their Google Voice inboxes, enter names or numbers (separated by commas) in the "To" field, write messages and click "send."

Replies from each recipient are threaded into separate conversations, so users can keep track of them in their Google Voice inboxes. To prevent spam, Google sets a maximum of five recipients per message.

It's useful.

Google to Build Fiber to Home Test Networks

In the latest version of its Internet access demonstration projects, Google says it will build some wholesale fiber-to-the-home networks. James Kelly, Google project manager, says Google is looking for communities interested in becoming trial sites, and will be accepting requests for information until March 26, 2010.

Initial plans call for building FTTH facilities serving 50,000 people, perhaps as many as 500,000. That's a bit indefinite. Assume a typical household has about 2.5 people in it and one could see perhaps 20,000 to 200,000 homes connected.

But there are lots of unanswered questions. It isn't clear whether Google means "a network passing X number of homes" or "a network serving X number of homes." Those are very different sorts of numbers if Google builds anyplace where a strong cable operator and a strong telco provider already are in business.

As a demonstration project, Google would learn as much serving 20,000 potential customers as 200,000. Frankly, there is very little that is unknown about the cost of building a fiber-to-home network, really. What Google might be interested in is the business case for a wholesale broadband network that didn't have to supply voice and traditional video services.

But again, there is very little that is unknown about that business case, either. We know the cost to build the network and operate it as an ISP. You can derive commercial rates by looking at what is charged in the local, regional or national markets, multiply by take rate of homes passed and you'd have your scenario without digging a single trench.

Kelly says "we are going to try out new ways to build and operate fiber networks and share what we learn with the world."

There likely is not much to be uncovered about the process of building FTTH, so Google likely means sharing what it learns about the business model for wholesale networks, which a few have experimented with in the U.S. market.

Broadweave, which operates in Provo, Utah, is an example, though it is unclear whether the firm will continue to allow wholesale customers to use its network. The current thinking seems to be to operate as a typical retail triple-play provider, rather than as a wholesale provider of access to third parties who may wish to do so.

Broadweave Networks took over a project originally started as a municipal FTTH network, paying $40.6 million for the assets, and struggled in 2009. The company drastically slowed its growth among residential customers to save on the high cost of new sign-ups in the spring of 2009, reports the Daily Herald.

Broadweave began asking prospective customers to foot part of the $1,000 installation bill in an effort to discourage new customers and effectively slow growth while the company grapples with ongoing financial concerns.

The company is instead decided to focus on commercial accounts and reactivation of former customers who already have optical drops in place.

The flow of new customers reportedly was slowed from hundreds a month to "tens or dozens" a month.

Google might attempt to prove the thesis that an FTTH wholesaler can make money strictly as a supplier of access services to third party partners who simply lease capacity on such networks. The big question always has been whether any such network actually is viable in markets where there are strong cable and telco competitors already in place.

Google previously has built limited municipal Wi-Fi networks as well. It isn't clear what Google believes it might have learned from those experiments.

In truth, the gambit most likely is simply another tool to be used in Google's lobbying for setting of national broadband policies, and not much more.

Broadband "Overshoot": How Big an Issue?

Fixed network operators, including cable operators and telcos, face two different problems when considering upgrades of their broadband access networks. One danger is not investing enough to keep capacity in line with the level of market demand. The opposite problem is investing too much.

In fact, that is a scenario at least some mobile competitors hope might be the case. "Fixed line broadband will overshoot the performance needs of the market, resulting in increasing data cord cutting as individuals, families, and businesses appreciate the value of mobility more than the value of excess bandwidth," says Russ McGuire Sprint Nextel VP.

That's not an unexpected view,coming from a wireless-only company building high-capacity wireless networks, but it is worth considering.Mobile broadband might, or might not, be a reasonable substitute for users who really want to watch lots of video on their PCs, smartphones or other mobile devices.

But mobile is likely to be quite a reasonable alternative for users who don't stream or download much video, especially if they are fairly mobile, either locally or over larger distances.

Video and Web Drive Mobile Bandwidth Consumption

Mobile bandwidth demand already is driven by video and Web access, a new analysis by Allot shows (click on image for larger view).

And though peer-to-peer applications were the cause of bandwidth fears several years ago, most video activity now occurs using HTTP, meaning it is now part of the Web browser experience.

As is true for backbone networks and fixed networks, voice, instant messaging, email and all other apps besides video and Web applications are a negligible driver of bandwidth consumption.

That doesn't mean revenue reflects bandwidth use. Revenue still is inordinately driven by voice and texting. Over time, that will change. If broadband is what is driving use of the network, then broadband has to become the mainstay of the revenue model as well.

Survey Finds Shockingly Low UC Adoption

Maybe it's just me, but after decades of the industry talking about, and delivering, unified messaging features, and after more than a decade of pushing other features such as unified directories, find me-follow me and other "unified" communications features, it still does not appear that all that many organizations really are using them.

Or so it would appear after a survey of 544 information technology professionals in the United States and United Kingdom by Freeform Dynamics.

The study suggests there currently is what some of us might call "shockingly low" adoption of unified communications. You might have thought otherwise, given the shift to new terminology such as "unified communications and collaboration." That might suggest saturation of UC, and a need for UCC.

The Freeform Dynamics might indicate something else: perhaps customers are not so enamored of the UC solutions they have been offered. Suppliers can react in a couple of ways. Maybe customers and prospects simply do not understand the value, in which case marketing and education should do the trick.

The other tack is to humbly acknowledge that the solutions we have been offering do not add enough value, do not offer additional value at the right price points, or that there are unarticulated problems we have not addressed.

The Freedorm Dynamics study might suggest that the industry has not yet found the "killer app" that makes UCC or UC intuitively valuable to most prospects and buyers.