The Cellular Market In The US Is Saturated – 24/7 Wall St
Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile have almost 260 million wireless subscribers. The U.S. population is 305 million people and some of those are too young to need or use a phone. Others don’t want one.
During the last quarter, Verizon added only 423,000 new contract subscribers and AT&T only 512,000 customers, rates that are lower than has been the case in past quarters.
So what does that mean? What it always means: providers will have to create new products to sell to a base of existing customers, rather than selling more of the existing product to new customers. In the cable and telecom business, that has meant both getting into new lines of business as well as "bundling."
For wireless providers, the new product is wireless broadband, immediately in the form of more smartphone data plans, but over time more use of wireless to support sensor networks of various types.
But there are wider policy implications as well. U.S. regulators sometimes behave as though nothing they do will seriously impede the ability of U.S. service providers to continue to invest and innovate. But both the wireline and wireless segments of the communications business face huge challenges. Existing growth models are exhausted and competition is growing.
Instead of behaving in ways that essentially are punitive, perhaps regulators should ask what they can do to allow the fastest-possible transition to new business models as the old models continue to waste away.
Telecom is not a growth industry; that should be obvious to all observers. The big challenge is to foster a transition to a sustainable model that will support continued investment in state-of-the-art facilities. Telecom, to put it bluntly, is not an industry that needs to be punished; it needs to be fostered.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The U.S. Mobile Voice Market Is Saturated: So What?
Labels:
business model,
net 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.
Palm Runs Out Of Options As HTC Reviews, Declines To Buy The Company
Palm Runs Out Of Options As HTC Reviews, Declines To Buy The Company: "According to a report based on a source from an Asia-based Reuters correspondent, smartphone maker HTC has decided not to bid for Palm after looking at the company’s numbers. The source, which reportedly has direct knowledge of the talks, said there “weren’t enough synergies to take the deal forward”.
That leaves Palm, which has been struggling to boost sales of its new range of smartphones, running out of options fast."
That leaves Palm, which has been struggling to boost sales of its new range of smartphones, running out of options fast."
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.
3D Augmented Reality Flash Mob in Dam Square, Amsterdam
What is described as the world's first augmented reality flash mob will happen at Dam Square in Amsterdam April 24 at 2 p.m. Attendees using Android and iPhone handsets will see three-dimensional statues using the Layar application.
Sander Veenhof is an organizer of the event, and TAB Worldmedia helped produce the content. "You can actually walk around them to look at them from all angles by just using your phone and the Layar browser," says Veenhof.
To prepare, download and install the Layar Augmented Reality browser and look for the layar using “ARflashmob” under the local tab.
Labels:
AR,
augmented reality,
flash mob,
Layar
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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Ringio Launches "Rich Calling" Service for SMBs
Ringio will launch a new cloud-based "rich calling" service for small and mid-sized businesses that might be mistaken for a hosted PBX sort of service but actually is more a hosted customer relationship management solution.
Ringio’s service allows users to map existing phone numbers to the CRM functions, which are available either on a desktop client or on Android-based smart phones.
The service is designed to be easy to set up and use, and requires no changes to existing hardware or software.
“We define ‘rich calling’ as bringing a telephone call and relevant information about the caller together at the same time to enrich communication and information sharing, says Ringio co-founder and Chairman Michael Zirngibl.
One example is that if an existing customer calls, notes about prior interactions with that customer are displayed, allowing any call agent to "pick up where the last agent left off" in a more-seamless way.
Ringio also features "presence" features so if a call has to be transferred, the call agent can be sure the other party is available to speak.
Ringio is launching the service’s own integrated call-control and screen-pop client for the PC, Mac desktop or Linux. Ringio also automatically retrieves and synchronizes records built using Google’s Contacts database, and plans are under way to integrate Ringio with Salesforce.com by later this summer.
The service will be provided directly to business customers through www.ringio.com. Pricing starts at $99 per month for four users, with additional users at $25 per month. Ringio is considering distribution partnerships and invites inquiry via partners@ringio.com.
Ringio’s intelligent call-routing functionality is being provided by Voxeo, a longtime platform host with an extensive history in IVR and convergent communications.
Zirngibl says it takes as little as10 minutes to set up for the first time.
Labels:
business VoIP,
Ringio
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.
Take a Kangaroo to Work Day, Apparently
"Take your child to work?" Heck! Take your kangaroo to work! This little guy wouldn't necessarily be dangerous. A full-grown red kangaroo, however, in the wild, has quite a kick. Enough to eviscerate an unlikely human facing a mad red....don't mess with me kangaroo, mate...
Labels:
Google
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.
"Soaring Profits" for Broadband Access Providers?
The Phoenix Center says claims by proponents of increased Internet regulation are quite wrong in claiming that firms such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint-Nextel, Qwest, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable are making "record profits," "substantial profits" or "soaring profits" that justify further regulation.
Quite to the contrary, those firms are earning at lower rates than the average Standard & Poors 500 firms does, and have done so for the last five years.
The Phoenix Center found that the profitability of the larger broadband access service providers is generally equal to, or below average, for firms in the S&P 500. It would be more accurate to say that profits are "'typical," not "soaring or 'substantial.'
Conversely, content firms like Google and EBay are substantially more profitable than the access providers are, implying that access providers are not benefiting as much as others in the Internet ecosystem from the surge in broadband adoption and use.
Across all measures of profitability, Google and Ebay are two-to-four times more profitable than the better performing broadband providers.
In fact, the Phoenix Center found that both Wal-Mart and Colgate-Palmolive have much higher profits than the large access providers.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has issued a challenge to the industry for data-driven analysis," according to study co-author and Phoenix Center President Lawrence J. Spiwak. "Accordingly, parties calling for regulation need to present more than just hyperbole about 'soaring' profits -- they need to present facts."
"The evidence shows that BSP profitability is fairly typical of American industry, if not a little low" said study co-author and Phoenix Center Chief Economist George S. Ford, PhD. "Based on available evidence, regulatory intervention based on substantial profitability by large BSPs has no basis in fact."
Quite to the contrary, those firms are earning at lower rates than the average Standard & Poors 500 firms does, and have done so for the last five years.
The Phoenix Center found that the profitability of the larger broadband access service providers is generally equal to, or below average, for firms in the S&P 500. It would be more accurate to say that profits are "'typical," not "soaring or 'substantial.'
Conversely, content firms like Google and EBay are substantially more profitable than the access providers are, implying that access providers are not benefiting as much as others in the Internet ecosystem from the surge in broadband adoption and use.
Across all measures of profitability, Google and Ebay are two-to-four times more profitable than the better performing broadband providers.
In fact, the Phoenix Center found that both Wal-Mart and Colgate-Palmolive have much higher profits than the large access providers.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has issued a challenge to the industry for data-driven analysis," according to study co-author and Phoenix Center President Lawrence J. Spiwak. "Accordingly, parties calling for regulation need to present more than just hyperbole about 'soaring' profits -- they need to present facts."
"The evidence shows that BSP profitability is fairly typical of American industry, if not a little low" said study co-author and Phoenix Center Chief Economist George S. Ford, PhD. "Based on available evidence, regulatory intervention based on substantial profitability by large BSPs has no basis in fact."
Labels:
att,
comcast,
Phoenix Center,
Qwest,
Sprint,
Time Warner Cable,
Verizon
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.
Verizon and AT&T Equity Performance is a Warning Sign
Communications policymakers in nations where the government does not directly own and control key national carriers in their markets always must balance their preferred regulatory outcomes with the possible responses private firms will make to those initiatives.
Put simply, too much regulatory pressure will lead to reduced investment and innovation, not more. The other issue is that every government considers its national communications infrastructure to be a matter of national interest.
That being the case, most governments will not willingly weaken their own carriers.
So take a look at how AT&T and Verizon equities have fared over the last year or so, compared to the Standard & Poors 500 index. Not so pretty.
What that tells you is that investors believe neither company has much in the way of "growth" ahead of it. In fact, many would argue both companies will increasingly be challenged, in coming years, to stay where they are, given major changes in the underlying business models each company faces.
That suggests policymakers should be cautious about making incorrect assumptions about the underlying financial prospects for the firms that arguably are most important to the national communications infrastructure.
It is not as though either firm were Apple, creating whole new industries and muscling its way into other substantial industries with some regularity. Quite to the contrary, innovation and revenue upside nearly universally are now seen as attributes of the application and handset parts of the communication value chain, not the "access" providers as such.
To be blunt, there may be times when regulatory restraint is the right policy. But there also are times when an industry with national economic and security implications faces enough fundamental challenges that "protection or promotion" is the right policy framework.
It is not the job of other ecosystem participants to worry about the financial health of other segments. But it always is the job of national policymakers to do so, when the issue is the health of the underlying national communications infrastructure.
First-quarter 2010 results posted by AT&T suggest the outlines of the problem. Simply, wireless now is the driver of revenue growth.
But wireless is saturating, forcing mobile providers to find new revenue sources. Also, mobile voice, which has been the segment mainstay, increasingly will come under pressure as landline voice has proven to be a product in a declining lifecycle.
The point is that the appropriate regulatory framework for a fast-growing, vibrant industry is different than for an industry that is fundamentally challenged. That is not to suggest industry executives are unaware of the problems, or that they have failed to show agility in the past; they have.
The point is simply that it might be a grave mistake to assume carriers can bear any burden where it comes to regulations that choke off their ability to create new services and revenues. The financial markets already are signaling their views how the industry is situated.
Put simply, too much regulatory pressure will lead to reduced investment and innovation, not more. The other issue is that every government considers its national communications infrastructure to be a matter of national interest.
That being the case, most governments will not willingly weaken their own carriers.
So take a look at how AT&T and Verizon equities have fared over the last year or so, compared to the Standard & Poors 500 index. Not so pretty.
What that tells you is that investors believe neither company has much in the way of "growth" ahead of it. In fact, many would argue both companies will increasingly be challenged, in coming years, to stay where they are, given major changes in the underlying business models each company faces.
That suggests policymakers should be cautious about making incorrect assumptions about the underlying financial prospects for the firms that arguably are most important to the national communications infrastructure.
It is not as though either firm were Apple, creating whole new industries and muscling its way into other substantial industries with some regularity. Quite to the contrary, innovation and revenue upside nearly universally are now seen as attributes of the application and handset parts of the communication value chain, not the "access" providers as such.
To be blunt, there may be times when regulatory restraint is the right policy. But there also are times when an industry with national economic and security implications faces enough fundamental challenges that "protection or promotion" is the right policy framework.
It is not the job of other ecosystem participants to worry about the financial health of other segments. But it always is the job of national policymakers to do so, when the issue is the health of the underlying national communications infrastructure.
First-quarter 2010 results posted by AT&T suggest the outlines of the problem. Simply, wireless now is the driver of revenue growth.
But wireless is saturating, forcing mobile providers to find new revenue sources. Also, mobile voice, which has been the segment mainstay, increasingly will come under pressure as landline voice has proven to be a product in a declining lifecycle.
The point is that the appropriate regulatory framework for a fast-growing, vibrant industry is different than for an industry that is fundamentally challenged. That is not to suggest industry executives are unaware of the problems, or that they have failed to show agility in the past; they have.
The point is simply that it might be a grave mistake to assume carriers can bear any burden where it comes to regulations that choke off their ability to create new services and revenues. The financial markets already are signaling their views how the industry is situated.
Labels:
att,
business model,
consumer behavior,
Verizon
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)
DIY and Licensed GenAI Patterns Will Continue
As always with software, firms are going to opt for a mix of "do it yourself" owned technology and licensed third party offerings....
-
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...