Cloud-Based Services Will be Lead by Enterprises for Next 5 Years

It is highly likely that enterprises will drive most of the $9.5 billion in cloud-based mobile applications that Juniper Research believes will be bought by 2014, but consumer revenues are likely to overtake enterprise-generated revenues after five years.

 Juniper Research predicts that enterprise applications will account for the majority of revenues over the next five years, with businesses increasingly seeking to capitalize on platform services that will be used to provide scalable, flexible data storage solutions and device agnostic, synchronised office services.

But consumer-oriented apps will comprise an ever-larger proportion of total revenues over time, derived both from time-based subscriptions to services such as mobile online gaming and advertising from cloud-based social networks.

While the onset of a cloud-based ecosystem may further erode the strength of the mobile operator-to-customer relationship, cloud computing offers operators the opportunity to develop new revenues streams as well.

100 Mbps "Can't be Done"

I learned long ago that when somebody says something "can't be done," it is best to understand that claim as "I can't do it." I think we also have learned that even when somebody says something can be done, they might mean "it can be done so long as not that many people want to do it."

And that might be the case as cable operators prep broadband access services capable of running at speeds as high as 250 Mbps, at least so long as most people do not desire to buy services running at such speeds.

Broadband Reports says cable operators will start talking about a 250 Mbps service sopmetime later this year, though nobody will be able to buy it. Comcast also says it will be offering 100-Mbps service to about 25 percent of its potential customers by the end of 2010.

Comcast should be congratulated for that move, though it is not clear what might happen if lots of people actually bought it.  The rub is that providing 250 Mbps requires bonding of about eight standard 6-MHz channels.

The issue there is the same problem satellite operators have when providing downstream bandwidth. There are finite numbers of channels available, so cannibalizing bandwidth for data services reduces the amount of bandwidth available for video services.

The point is that some providers--particularly cable operators--will be able to claim speeds of at least 100 Mbps, at least in terms of what is commercially feasible at low penetration. it isn't clear any network can support 100 Mbps at high penetration, at least not at prices in two, rather than three digits.

Still, it is a reminder that when somebody says something "can't be done," one has to consider the source. Just because one company can't do it does not mean all companies cannot do it.

The other relevant observation is that "hero" devices and services are feasible. What is not clear is whether "mass market" availability is possible.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Exploring-250-Mbps-Service-107002

Mobile Signaling Causes Congestion, Not Bandwidth

Executives highly familiar with mobile broadband network operations know that radio networks can, and do, become congested for reasons having to do with signaling, rather than bandwidth consumption. Executives at Spirent and Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs,  for example, have pointed out that mobile phone design can itself cause problems.

As it turns out, that is true of the iPhone as well, which tries to save power by disconnecting from the network whenever possible.

Now engineers at U.K. mobile provider O2 point out that the iPhone uses more power-saving features than previous smartphone designs. That's good for users, but bad for radio networks.

Most devices that use data do so in short bursts—a couple e-mails here, a tweet there, downloading a voicemail message, etc. Normally, devices that access the data network use an idling state that maintains the open data channel between the device and the network.

However, to squeeze even more battery life from the iPhone, Apple configured the radio to simply drop the data connection as soon as any requested data is received. When the iPhone needs more data, it has to set up a new data connection, O2 engineers say.

The result is more efficient use of the battery, but it can cause problems with the signaling channels used to set up connections between a device and a cell node.  Simply put, the signaling overhead congests the network, not the bearer channels. It is signaling load, not bandwidth consumption, that causes much congestion.

It's important to note, however, that this technique is not limited to the iPhone. Android and webOS devices also use a similar technique to increase battery life. While the iPhone was the first and currently most prolific device of this type, such smartphones are quickly becoming common, and represent the majority of growth in mobile phone sales in the past year.

Networks designed to handle signaling traffic dynamically, shifting more spectrum to signaling channels when needed, can mitigate this problem. But even with more signaling capacity, network nodes may not be able to set up a data session, or may have problems getting a valid network address from an overloaded DHCP server.

In fact, the fact that Europe embraced heavy text messaging and data use far earlier than users in the United States meant that the signaling networks were configured early on for heavy signaling traffic.

Neustar Lauches 2D Barcode Clearinghouse

Neustar recently launched a "Mobile Barcode Clearinghouse Services" operation intended to ensure that any mobile barcode can be read by any mobile phone or application. 

That might not seem like a big deal, but history suggests that penetration and use of any technology, no matter how useful, never gets routine and widespread use so long as the information cannot be communicated effortlessly across the entire base of people, applications and devices.

That was true for railroads. It was true for phone service. It was true of text messaging and email, and it won't be different for 2D barcodes. 

"The clearinghouse is an important component of Neustar’s mobile internet solutions strategy, which bridges network operators and enterprises and simplifies their delivery of value to customers," Neustar says. 

Neustar is right about that. 

Intel Tries to Join Apple Among Innovator Ranks

Here's another example of the fact that truly-significant innovation sometimes comes from the largest and most-influential firms, not from upstart firms. Apple is probably the best-known and most-apt example. Google once was an upstart, but these days is a deep-pocketed incumbent.

Now Intel appears to be preparing a ferocious assault on the underlying chip-level technologies that will power the next generation of mobile-based Internet and computing.

"The going rate for a state-of-the-art chip factory is about $3 billion," the New York Times reports. And those are just table stakes. Predicting a "bloody" war, the Times points out that, in this next phase, the manufacturers will be fighting to supply the silicon for one of the fastest-growing segments of computing: smartphones, tiny laptops and tablet-style devices.

The fight pits several big chip companies against Intel, and the winner or winners will be assured a significant place in the emerging mobile computing ecosystem, which most observers predict is the next era of computing to come.

Are Broadband, Voice, TV and Mobile Services Really Commodities?

Both industry executives and consumers might sometimes be accused of viewing mobile, voice, broadband and multi-channel TV services as "commodities." Whether that is true, and to what extent, is, and ought to be, a matter of debate, not certitude.

Consider Verizon and DirecTV, for example. You might say that both provide services that other key competitors also provide, and that the features and prices are, at some level, comparable and even similar.
But their offerings are not identical with the offerings of their key competitors, and that appears to be by design, not accident.

DirecTV is the biggest satellite pay-TV provider in the United States and competes with other satellite and cable providers.  But that doesn't mean it competes for an identical set of customers, even though there is much overlap.

The company is not exceptionally distinct in aiming to grow revenues in the future by focusing on average revenue per user growth more than growth in the number of subscribers. Indeed, virtually every provider expects to do that.

Nor is DirecTV distinct in that regard. In a competitive, multi-product market, virtually every provider seeks to get more revenue by selling more things to existing customers, not simply adding new customers.
But DirecTV and Verizon seem to be focusing on higher-spending customers, compared to the other competitors in each of their markets.

DirecTV focuses on "higher-quality" subscribers who tend to pay extra for its advanced services like high-definition and digital video recorder  service. In the fourth quarter of 2009, about 70 percent of new DirecTV subscribers signed up for HD and DVR services, for example.  Overall HD-DVR penetration amongst DirecTV’s subscriber base amounting to about 60 percent.

Some observers expect DirecTV’s HD-DVR penetration to increase to 80 percent by about 2016.
DirecTV plans to offer new services include mulit-room viewing and new broadband applications as well. DirecTV Cinema is a movie service that will allow subscribers to watch certain films through DirecTV as soon as they are released on DVDs.

Verizon likewise tends to focus on higher-spending customers as well.

The point is that even as broadband, mobile, voice and multi-channel TV services are highly competitive, they are not, in the strict sense, "commodities." It might not matter whether a sugar product was made from beets or sugar cane. It can, and often does matter, that a firm's customer service, features, devices, packaging or pricing are distinct.

Is "Access" Where Most of the Revenue Is?

Fretting over whether people will pay for content is based on a mistaken assumption: that people have ever paid for content in the past, says Forrester Research VP. "They actually haven't," he says.

 Instead, people have paid for access to content.  You have to think about this some. People buy newspapers, so isn't that a content purchase? Well, he argues, not really. The cost of the newspaper purchase never covers the full cost of the content, which is mostly paid for by advertising.

One had to think about a "newspaper" as a distribution channel and a content aggregator, not an actual "content product" in that sense.

So what about cable TV? McQuivey argues even monthly video subscriptions are about "access" to content, not direct content purchasing. "Pay per view," where a show or movie is bought a la carte, on the other hand, is a content purchase.  Subscriptions to linear channels are a form of access, he argues.

If one looks at matters that way, "access" constitutes 77 percent of what the average household spends for "content" each month is spent on content access, not content itself.

Some will argue with the notion that a cable, telco video or satellite video connection is "access" rather than content. On the other hand, having linear video streaming in the background, even when one is not watching, is somewhat akin to voice "dial tone" or broadband Internet access. It's there, one can use it when one wants, but it is not a discrete "content"purchase.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to classify cable TV as "access" rather than content. People pay for their voice services using a flat-fee subscription, as they pay for linear video. Some of us might not think a different payment method, or retail pricing plan, changes the nature of the product.

But it is an interesting way of looking at the relative value of various revenue streams. Back in the early days of the tramnsition from dial-up to broadband, I gave a speech to a group of ISPs very concerned about the difficulty of the business model.

At that time, most of the actual revenue was earned by providing access. There was some amount of value-added service and products.  For better or worse, I said then, "access" was where most of the money was, despite the difficulty of the business case.

The business ecosystem was simpler then. Google had not grown to its current state, for example.  Looked at broadly, it may no  longer be true that most of the money is in access.