Verizon Fixed-Line Divestiture?

It might never happen, and wouldn't happen soon, but Goldman Sachs Group analysts think Verizon Communications might actually split in two, divesting all of its fixed-line assets to become a pure-play mobile operator.  

That would clear the way for some eventual combination of the wireless company with another partner. In recent years, Verizon's growth has been lead by its Verizon Wireless unit.

In many ways, such a decision would be driven by the simple economics of the landline business. By about 2016, it is conceivable that only half of U.S. households will be buying fixed line voice services. If you assume there are two dominant suppliers in most markets, and that market share is split evenly (it will probably be more like 60-40 or 70-30), then no single contender will have more than about 25 percent of homes passed as customers.

If you know anything about the economic of capital-intensive networks, you will sense the problem. A supplier builds a network reaching every location, then is able to generate revenue from only a quarter of the locations. That means 75 percent of the investment is simply stranded, unable to produce revenue.

That also means the 25 percent of users have to pay for all of the capital investment. And where the per-customer investment is that high, retail prices would have to be three to four times higher than if nearly everybody bought the product.

There are other products, though, including video entertainment, broadband access and other smaller revenue contributors that could include advertising and other services. That is a primary reason revenue will not fall as much as penetration would indicate. 

It also would be reasonable to point out that few companies have Verizon's assets or problems. AT&T, for example, has vastly more scale in terms wired network customer base, and in a scale business, that makes a difference. 

Also, Verizon's smaller footprint means it has a larger "out of region" opportunity than does AT&T, for example, in terms of "wired network services." In wireless services, AT&T and Verizon compete virtually head to head in all  U.S. markets. 

But Verizon has been signaling for some time that it might have new plans based on its new fourth generation Long Term Evolution mobile network. With some limitations, Verizon Wireless would be able to provide broadband access, voice and messaging to most consumers across the United States using only the 4G mobile network. Verizon Fixed-Line Divestiture?

Verizon already has business agreements with DirecTV to provide video entertainment, meaning Verizon Wireless could provide a quadruple play using only its wireless assets and business deals with other suppliers. Resale deals with leading cable operators

The challenging news here is the growing disconnect of sorts between the costs of a fiber to home network and the revenues that can be generated from deploying such a network, under competitive conditions.

That suggests we might once again hear calls for rather-substantial changes in regulatory framework that would somehow better "rationalize" competitor access to fixed networks. At some point, structural separation, robust mandatory resale and cable operator inclusion in such a framework will be on the agenda.

As important as facilities-based competition has been, there is a growing disconnect between investment cost and revenue opportunity for landline fiber networks, at a time when revenue growth is moving to a "mobile first" pattern.

Any future Verizon "divestiture" would be the first indication that matters are reaching a potential tipping point. Certainly there are continuing reasons to ponder the economics of the fixed network business.

By 2016, U.S. household  voice penetration will be about 52 percent, according to Pyramid Research. And that will be the highest penetration rate in the world.

In the Asia Pacific region fixed-line voice will be used by 24 percent of households.

In Western Europe, 21 percent of households will have a voice line. Revenue, on the other hand, will grow, in aggregate, on the strength of broadband access services.

“According to our estimates, global narrowband line penetration of households decreased from 45 percent in 2007 to 37 percent in 2011, and it will decline to 27 percent by 2016,” says Sylwia Boguszewska, Pyramid Research senior analyst.

Fixed services in every region are losing ground fast to mobile services, with mobile data capturing an increasingly substantial share of total telecom revenue, she says.

In 2007, U.S. voice penetration was about 97 percent of households, and seems to have peaked about 2000.

So penetration will have fallen in about a decade and a half. Those sorts of changes seem to be more common these days, as the volatility of the business reaches new heights.

Nor would that be the first such change, at about that time frame. In 1997 long distance revenue represented about half of fixed line network revenue in the U.S. fixed-line market.

By 2007 long distance had fallen by half. At the same time, and over the same time period, mobile services had grown to represent half of industry revenue.

And it is revenue, more than service penetration or usage, that seems to be important. Pyramid Research also suggests that fixed line revenue will be stable, or even grow slightly, as penetration falls.

That will be due in part to new revenue sources such as video entertainment, one might argue, and higher spending for broadband access and related products.

At the same time, it has over the last decade also been clear that the enterprise customer segment has become more crucial, not only for Verizon Communications but for most other tier-one service providers. Verizon Fixed-Line Divestiture?

Some skeptics will note that such ideas, which spawn transactions, always get speculated about because there are firms that make a good living advising clients about such transactions.

While true, it also is true that the fundamental industry drivers change quite dramatically over time. In 1999, tehre still were "Personal Communications Service" and "Cellular" segments of the wireless business. These days, the term is never used, because there no longer is any distinction between what used to be thought of as "PCS," and "cellular" service. U.S. telecom in 1999

In 1999, there still was an independent "long distance" industry. There was a company named "WorldCom."

A company known as "America Online" had a $125 billion market capitalization. Other Internet service provider firms, including "@Home," had market valuations of $100 billion.

In 1999, reasonable people would have argued that newer contestants in the "local" telecom business, namely competitive local exchange carriers, had a bright and substantial future.

Cable TV companies did not provide voice services at a significant level. But AT&T owned TCI, the biggest U.S. cable company. As I recall, US West owned Media One, another leading U.S. cable company.

Against that backdrop, it might have appeared that the former "Baby Bells" would have a hard time competing. Just a bit over a decade later, many of the "upstarts" have disappeared. The differences between leading cable TV companies and leading telcos are mostly of a regulatory sort, rather than any fundamental differences in product line.

The point is that if, barely more than a decade ago, the largest U.S. long distance company could own the largest cable TV company, if the wireless business was still thought of as having distinct personal communications service and cellular segments, if whole segments of the business can virtually disappear (long distance), then all sorts of other changes are conceivable.

Verizon deciding it has to get bigger on a global basis, and get out of the landline business, is not unthinkable.

Top 1% of Mobile Users Use Half of World’s Wireless Bandwidth - NYTimes.com

Just one percent of mobile consumers use half of all bandwidth, reports Arieso, which also notes that the top 10 percent of users consume 90 percent of wireless bandwidth, according to a study of the habits of 1.1 million customers of a European mobile operator during a 24-hour period in November 2011. Extreme bandwidth users

The gap between extreme users and the rest of the population also is widening over time, according to Arieso. In 2009, the top three percent of heavy users generated 40 percent of network demand. Now, Arieso said, just three percent of users represent 70 percent of the traffic. Top 1% of Mobile Users Use Half of World’s Wireless Bandwidth

Video is a likely reason for the explosion of usage by the heaviest users.

 

How Might "Mobile First" Apply?

Google has talked for nearly two years about a development strategy it calls "mobile first." The notion has much to do with cloud-based applications and much to do with the growing importance of mobile devices as a key platform for application-based businesses.

“It's clear that we're experiencing a fundamental shift in how we access information,” said Google VP Vic Gundotra, in 2010. “Clearly, the mobile phone is the iconic device of the moment, and we're encouraging a new rule: Mobile First.” Mobile is the key

“When we announce new services for desktop computers, such as real-time search, we will debut an equally powerful mobile version,” said Gundotra.

That rule might not make as much sense for most other businesses whose products are physical rather than virtual. That isn’t to say that the mobile context is irrelevant.

Most firms conduct some marketing activities, and the mobile venue increasingly is important, even if indirectly much of the time (perhaps 40 percent of all Facebook interactions now occur on mobiles rather than PCs, for example).

For any firms using Facebook, that means being aware that a growing percentage of activity occurs when people are out and about, on devices with small screens, and in a context that is distinct from a desktop PC environment.

In a growing number of cases, that means being alert to the mobile commerce, comparison shopping and other activities that pertain directly to people engaged in the act of shopping.

The notion of “mobile first,” not too strictly interpreted, might make sense for any firm contemplating the ways it markets and communicates with prospects or customers. For retailers, the imperatives might be more stark. People already are using their mobiles to compare prices when inside stores.

The point is that, for many firms, it is a reasonable question to ask how  "mobile first" might apply in product development, sales, marketing, customer service or fulfillment.

Right Now, "Speed" is the Killer App for LTE

Many observers would argue there will be no "killer app" for Long Term Evolution fourth generation mobile networks, though virtually everybody expects new apps to develop, at some point. No killer app?

It might be more accurate to say that, at first, the 4G killer app will be "speed and lower latency," compared to 3G. In that case, "speed" is not a "unique new app," but is the value driver.

In fact, speed is a "default" killer app, by design, in some markets where new networks launch with an exclusive focus on PC modems. In that case, the current killer app is mobile broadband access for notebooks and PCs, but "faster."

The largest LTE device segment will be PC modems through 2014, as operators initially focus on mobile broadband access for PCs, argues Pyramid Research.

But after 2014, the PC segment will be replaced by smart phone connections. In that case, one might simply argue that Internet access is the killer app, as it has been for 3G networks. But it also might be argued that entertainment video or various cloud computing services could emerge as key apps that require broadband access.

In 2016, Pyramid Research forecasts there will be 592 million  LTE subscriptions in service, equivalent to 7.3 percent of all cellular subscriptions at that time.

Orange's LTE/EPC Program Director Rémi Thomas says "LTE is not driven by a killer application, but it will essentially be driven by capacity needs," said Thomas. No Killer App for LTE


In other words, the killer value is simply "faster access" to the Internet. Perhaps that is all consumers will require, or that developers will build upon. But some think new apps specific to 4G capabilities could emerge, rather than being "planned for." Killer app is a myth


Other candidates for eventual killer apps might be those which are cloud-based and therefore offer better or new functionality; video services; gaming, telemetry or other "new" apps we haven't discovered yet. Some of us would say the unique "killer app" for 4G is the personal Wi-Fi hotspot. It's an app that is used on 3G networks, but arguably works much better on 4G networks. 


It would be perfectly fine, in one sense, for "faster" to be the unique 4G network value, at least initially. But there are good reasons why service providers would love to discover some novel app that becomes really popular. As was the case with text messaging, large new revenue streams would then be possible. LTE Devices and Applications

Execs Differ on "Simplicity or Value" in Mobile Pricing

Usage-based billing is not the ideal solution to manage usage of mobile broadband capacity, nor is it the solution consumers prefer, one study of European mobile consumers suggests. A separate study suggests that, despite those findings, mobile service provider executives would rather bill by usage.

In other words, although many suppliers believe service providers would be better off using more-complex pricing schemes, service provider executives tend to prefer simple usage-based mechanisms. To be sure, that reflects the industry’s heritage.

But many mobile executives seem to prefer simplicity, rather than “value-based” mechanisms. In recent days, there has been more thinking about how to manage mobile networks destined to face high congestion problems because of growing volumes of video consumption, for example.

So some think monetary incentives can be used to induce bandwidth-conserving behavior. For example,
the survey by Tekelec suggests that about 40 percent of respondents would prefer to have a plan that has restrictions on video usage, so long as the plan was about $5 a month cheaper than a plan without such restrictions, says Randy Fuller, director of strategic marketing at Tekelec. About 60 percent would buy such a plan for a $10 a month discount.

About half of respondents would consider buying a package costing about $5 a month more than a standard package, if it offered live video streaming, but did not count against a usage cap. Perhaps 43 percent would buy a video on demand service, if it did not count against a cap and cost about $5 a month more than a standard plan.

"It is amazing how many people ignore what consumers prefer, in terms of how they buy video," said Fuller. "Our hypothesis was that while video is between 30 to 50 percent of bandwidth consumption, it is less important than that, to consumers."

That’s one form of pricing according to value. "A lot of tiered pricing models head in one of two directions, buy a bucket, or allow consumers to make trade offs," said Fuller. "If you want to use more services that cost more to deliver, you pay for that, and that, essentially, is what we tried to think through."

At least for the European subscribers polled, video was fourth behind Web browsing, email and navigation services in perceived value. Instant messaging, music and social networking ranked higher than voice, in terms of perceived value.

In fact, when asked to rank the value of various applications as standalone applications, Web browsing was valued at $6.94 a month. Voice was valued at $2.91 a month.

“Pricing based on value now seems to make more sense to end users,” said Fuller. “Byte-based pricing is not optimal.” But the larger conclusion one might draw is that “there is no one rate plan that is best for different consumers,” said Fuller.

Mobile Internet offers should be segmented to match end user demand, said Fuller. In fact, that sort of thing is common in Austria, Germany, France and Poland, for example. Orange  in several countries has a “happy hour” plan where you get an hour of unlimited usage, no matter what plan you are on, said Fuller.

The point is that “people should have choices,” he said. The big difference between fixed and mobile is that mobile bits are more expensive to deliver, Fuller added. But the fundamental issue is that mobile networks will continue to be more expensive than fixed networks.

Mobile Internet pricing perhaps has to move to tiered pricing, but some forms are better than others, Fuller said. Plans designed for messaging could be different than plans supporting lots of video consumption, for example.

The simplicity of an unlimited plan will appeal to some people, but not to all. Others might be quite fine with plans that feature buckets of usage, so long as they have an easy way to track their usage and control it.
Segmentation will work, Fuller argues, and also will allow mobile service providers to match usage and the cost of meeting that demand. Many consumers in the study preferred unlimited Web browsing and limited video consumption, for example.

Still, mobile executives seem to prefer simplicity.

Leap Plans "Bursty" Pricing

Leap Wireless has announced it plans to launch session-based data services over its existing tiered data pricing structure, a move that will allow "Cricket" customers to purchase faster data speeds for short periods of time. The company said it will launch the service in the first half of 2012.


The ability to temporarily pay for expedited or faster access is one example of on-demand pricing, congestion pricing or value-based pricing. But Leap is relatively unusual among mobile service providers, most of whom do not yet see the need or benefits of moving to value-based pricing mechanisms. 

There always is a tension between operational simplicity and sophistication in retail customer packaging and network management. Simple approaches often are cheaper, but at the cost of forfeiting creation of more-nuanced subscriber plans.


Likewise, policy management tools that can prioritize and shape bandwidth consumption can help service providers alleviate congestion and provide higher end user experience, where regulators allow such tools to be used. But there appear to be lots of trade offs.


Most executives would agree that flat-rate billing for unlimited use is a difficult and likely unsustainable retail packaging model for broadband access, especially in the mobile services realm. 


But what should be the replacement? That seems to be a tougher question. There always is a tension between simplicity and value where it comes to pricing, billing and retail packaging. 



As a corollary, executives must weigh “pricing by value,” or “pricing by application,” which means more complexity for consumers, or some simpler “pricing by consumption” approach.


Leap CEO and President Doug Hutcheson appears to believe that "pricing by value" will make sense for consumers, and also can be made simple enough that consumers will understand the value proposition. 


"The next big step for us that we believe is important is to add what's called session-based capability on top of that [tiered pricing]," Hutcheson said. "And that will give us a lot more rate plan flexibility."


Cricket might have more incentive than many other service providers to do so, though, as Cricket competes in the value segment of the mobile market. That suggests users frequently might prefer lower monthly charges, but occasionally have the need to consume more data, or occasionally ramp up speed. 


"Should you have a very low amount of data but want to buy more within a month, you'll have the ability to buy sessions or time periods where you can accelerate that speed, and it will be done very simply and very straightforward over the device or on a simple transaction with us," Hutcheson says. Leap to launch session-based pricing

A related idea is that applications have distinct and different value, and that pricing could reflect end user value. Few mobile service providers have been willing to attempt that sort of pricing, either. 

Mobile Coupon Redemption Rates to Outperform Paper Coupons 800%

Global redemption rates of mobile coupons will average at over eight percent by 2016, Juniper Research forecasts. "So what?" you might say, but consider that paper coupon redemption rates are about one percent.

North American and Western European markets are now beginning to follow the same growth path as the Far East and China and by 2016 there will be over 600 million regular mobile coupon users worldwide.

Though some would dismiss the whole mobile coupon business as a bit of a fad, with difficult economics for providers and few barriers to entry, others might say such "daily deals and offers" will be quite strategic for mobile payments platforms.

The reason is simple: mobile coupons address the question of "value" for retailers and end users to adopt mobile payments systems. Since few now believe new mobile payments systems will save retailers much money in transaction fees, and since in most cases check out using a "wave" approach does not necessarily save a customer much time, proponents have the challenge of showing where the value lies.

Juniper researchers argue that mobile coupons are particularly strategic for bricks and mortar retailers in their quest to regain ground lost to online retailers during the Internet revolution.

A mobile coupon bridges the divide between online and physical retailing and can be individually targeted to drive customers into stores. Mobile Coupon Redemption Rates