The Device is the Disruption

“Disruption” is the whole reason most companies receive venture capital backing. Disruption largely defines what has been happening in the telecom business for several decades. And yet there is extreme sensitivity about the notion. For good reason, one might argue.

Just one example: Microsoft owns Skype, which soon will be available on every major smart phone operating system used globally. Oddly, Microsoft is the last remaining major OS where Skype has not been supported.

So the irony is that voice revenues, which continue to represent 70 percent to 75 percent of all mobile service revenues, now will start to be challenged by mobile VoIP that is simply built in to the smart phones that represent the industry’s future.

Disruption, in other words, now has become a feature of the very devices the mobile networks themselves depend on for future growth. Mobile VoIP forecast

M2M Revenue $35 Billion in 2016?

The machine-to-machine (M2M) market, basically the ability of sensors to communicate using wrieless means to servers, generally is viewed as one of the key three to four areas where the mobile services industry can look for growth in coming years, especially once sales of mobile broadband services become saturated.

By the end of 2011, most major mobile operators in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region had established M2M business units, in part because of a belief that connections will rise from about 110 million in 2011 to approximately 365 million connections by 2016.

The caveat is that some observers consider tablet, e-book and mobile PC connections to be M2M, while others do not.

Still, the 27 percent compounded annual growth rate between now and 2016 and translates to about $35 billion in connectivity services revenue.

The two largest cellular M2M market segments over the forecast period, by revenue, will be automotive telematics and smart energy.  

Automotive telematics, including factory-installed systems such as GM’s OnStar service, aftermarket services such as usage-based insurance, and fleet management systems, will together represent more than $15.5 billion in 2016, according to ABI Research.

Meanwhile, smart energy, specifically cellular connectivity to smart meters and data concentrators, will represent more than $7.5 billion in 2016.  M2M

Android, Apple iOS Continue to Dominate

If you want to know why Research in Motion is in trouble, just look at RIM's market share. 





Android, iOS dominate smart phone OS market

Wireless Spectrum Shifts

Verizon Wireless now has gained a step on AT&T in the spectrum resources area, adding additional capacity from SpectrumCo, Comcast, Cox Communications, adding about 54 megahertz, for a total of about 172 MHz, while AT&T has about 114 MHz.


To put that in perspective, 20 MHz is a big deal, allowing use of about 10 MHz for both upstream and downstream communications.


But total spectrum doesn't really tell the story. The key is how much new spectrum is available to support a fourth generation Long Term Evolution network. And that's where the disparity between Verizon and AT&T is most stark.


The cable deals leave Verizon Wireless with 56 percent more 4G spectrum than AT&T in the top 10 markets and 46 percent more in the top 100, according to John Hodulik, a UBS AG analyst.

Mobile Ad Impressions Growing Exponentially

In 2011, the InMobi mobile ad network saw 251 percent growth in mobile impressions globally. That is perhaps not unusual in rapidly-growing new businesses that have a small base to build on.

Given the rapid uptake of smart phones, and heavier use of smart phones for mobile web and mobile apps, InMobi also says growth of mobile impressions on smart phones was about 488 percent in 2011.


In North America, mobile impressions grew 366 percent while smart phone impressions grew 625 percent, inMobi says. 


Tablets also were a new factor, with tablet impressions increasing 771 percent year-over-year, to 11.2 billion. Review of 2011 mobile ad growth

AT&T Will Have to Do Something About Spectrum

AT&T will have to acquire more spectrum to support its fourth-generation network plans, most believe. The only question is what it can do to acquire that spectrum without triggering another regulatory battle.

Dish Network seems to many the safest and most-logical bet. Dish has no mobile or telecom subscribers and therefore would not represent another horizontal size issue for AT&T.

Dish owns satellite spectrum acquired from DBSD North America and TerreStar Networks that Dish has proposed to reuse for a Long Term Evolution network. AT&T Bid for Dish?

What Future for Fixed Line Providers in a Wireless World?

It is reasonable to note that a majority of global telecom service provider revenue already is being generated by mobile services. By some estimates, mobile already represents 56 percent of global retail service revenues. For AT&T, wireless represents about half of total revenue.

At Verizon, wireless represents 63 percent of total revenue. So what does that imply for the future of the business?

“If you are in the desktop business or the fixed line business, lie down and die,” quips Kara Swisher, All Things D co-producer. Swisher made those comments in reference to her view that “mobile now is everything.”

Swisher’s quip would be shared by many others, who in a purely studied way would point out that, on a global basis, mobile already contributes more than half of all global service provider revenues, and that most of the growth will be coming from mobile services over the next decade.

But there might be more to it than that. Ross Patterson, a commissioner of the New Zealand Commerce Commission, argues that “without government funding, fiber to the home networks would not have been built in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.”

Those networks feature structural separation of wholesale network operations and retail service delivery, as well as open access to the wholesale infrastructure by third parties.

The direct implication is that the business model for ubiquitous fiber to the home is unattractive enough that public capital had to be pledged to create the infrastructure.

Granted, investment models and regulatory schemes vary around the world, but those choices in Southeast Asia and Australia point out the difficulty of the business model for large fiber to premises networks.

In the U.S. market, Verizon Communications, long the largest telecom firm to champion fiber to the home networks, has halted new builds, has sold rural exchanges and has inked deals with cable operators that suggest it no longer has complete confidence that the financial payback is there.

Other service providers, with more limited geographic areas to cover, or with some form of local government sponsorship or ownership, might not have different business models that could be workable.  

But Swisher’s half-in-jest quip, and the decisions of regulators and industry participants in three nations, suggest that the business model for widespread and large fiber to home networks could be more uncertain now that mobility has clearly become the growth engine for global telecom, and as wireless broadband alternatives become more workable.

Regulators in much of Europe also now seem to be grappling with the riskiness of such investments. What to do is the issue.

In Germany, there are mandatory open access rules, but only in areas where there is no cable competition, and with no mandatory pricing rules, says Matthias Kurtz, president of the Federal Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Railways.

That is not to say anything is inevitable. But neither is it true that the financial prospects for fixed network service providers are as predictable or certain as they used to be.

There seem also to be growing voices saying “I’m not saying broadband is a human right, but...” 


Many also argue that broadband is infrastructure “like roads or electricity,” says Swisher. That implies a view of what should be done that could have potential unsettling results.


Whatever else you might say, the regulated monopoly period featured low consumer prices for basic local access, high rates for long distance calling, low rates of innovation, and very high business prices. Utilities often work that way. Some may yearn for some version of the "good old days," which, it might be argued, were not so good.