Will Billing Innovation Allow Mobile Service Providers to Sell Retail Apps, Not Pipe?

Service providers hate the idea of being "dumb pipe" access providers. They'd rather be thought of as providers of high-value applications. Precisely how they can do so has been the issue. 

In some ways, it is a complicated task. For starters, telcos, cable providers and satellite companies are "access" providers. 

That's just their role in the Internet value chain. 

That likely means that, no matter what, most of the revenue a telco, cable company or satellite broadband company makes, will be made from an access service.

What most people want from a telco, cable modem service, wireless ISP or satellite broadband provider  is access to the Internet. They don't want another ISP email address, or the apps the particular provider offers. They just want access to the Internet. 

That isn't "all" a telco or cable company sells, though. In many cases, service providers sell "apps" that use the network. Voice, text messaging and video entertainment are historic examples. 

But some might argue the philosophical approach can change in helpful ways, where it comes to revenue. For example, if voice, texting and entertainment video are "apps" that use the network, some might argue the logical approach is to expand that effort, creating more retail apps or features that use the network and network access.


There are two aspects to that effort. Service providers have to imagine and create valuable features or apps, or have to invent new ways to enable app providers to package and present their services. Then service providers have to create low cost, "zero touch" ways of provisioning and billing. ItsOn provides one example. 


ItsOn is a venture-backed software company with what you might say is an unusual story. ItsOn says it can enable mobile users to self provision temporary, on demand service plan changes, without needing to interact with an existing carrier call center. 

At least conceptually, the ability to make such changes "on the fly" could allow service providers to create, and bill for, any number of on-demand applications, features or services that at present are extremely cumbersome or possibly impossible. 

In a sense, ItsOn promises to extend usage-based service capabilities that carriers might, in principle, already have contemplated but have not implemented for reasons related to customer confusion, backend system constraints and retraining of in-house customer service personnel. 

Of particular interest, from a mobile service provider perspective, is the ability to do application level plans.

A service provider could decide to create a plan that provides a flat data rate for a specific bundle of apps or websites. That might make sense if a service provider wanted to price a plan lower if it does not allow use of video streaming, for example.

A brand could decide to make a streaming event like a concert or football game free for mobile users in a certain area who interact with their ad. Right now, that would be a cumbersome undertaking, and there is no revenue incentive for a mobile service provider to do so. ItsOn might enable both a brand-specific event pricing, but also a way for a mobile service provider to create a revenue stream.

A group of online retailers could offer reduced or free wireless service on a device in exchange for shopping through their sites and apps. Again, the idea is that new revenue opportunities are possible for the mobile service provider. 

For business users, ItsOn might enable a firm to create worker access plans that pay for specific data uses like VPN, intranet or email, but not personal web surfing. 

All of those, and more, might be called examples of a "retail" approach to using network access. 

4G Benefits Overstated?

Despite claims to the contrary, the early returns from fourth generation (4G) mobile networks and faster fixed network broadband ("superfast" networks) will not match the advantages of the earlier switch from dial-up to broadband Internet access, at least in the near term, a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit argues. 

Among the mistakes is a belief that the shift to faster networks will have a meaningful impact on  employment, for example, beyond the short term boost in jobs while the network is being constructed. 

The study might remind some observers of earlier promised productivity gains from broader application of computing in business, or the new applications 3G mobile networks were supposed to bring. 

In fact, studies of  productivity are a hazardous undertaking. Some would note, for example, that U.S. productivity growth has been in long term decline since the early 1970s. You might argue that application of computing slowed the rate of decline, but that is not what people generally think. 

In fact, studies of productivity in the 1980s, when computers first became ubiquitous in U.S. businesses and organizations, do not show positive changes in productivity. The Internet, on the other hand, does arguably seem to have changed the productivity curve.

On the other hand, some might point to a productivity gain from 1996 to 2006, and there is some thinking that a shift to Internet processes might explain the temporary gain in productivity rates. 

Some might say that is the meaning of the shift from dial-up to broadband access. People could only do so much with dial-up access. With broadband and the web, many business processes and applications could be redesigned and created. 

But the issue for faster broadband is whether the gains can be as pronounced. In fact, looking at productivity growth since about 1945, you might strain to locate the precise impact of computing technology at all, though the era of Internet computing does seem to have changed the curve. 

In other words, computers did not really lead to identifiable productivity gains, for the most part. Only recently, with the Internet and the web, have clear productivity gains been seen, across most industries. In other words, computers did not change the world, but the Internet has. 




You might say such faith in job creation resulting from faster broadband access is a case of hopes, not history. A study from the London School of Economics has argued that investing
£5 billion into superfast networks (offering 24 Mbps or faster access speeds) would create some 280,000 new U.K.  jobs, both directly and indirectly. Others have estimated higher returns. 


One recent study conducted in Sweden, which explored the impact of "superfast" broadband on
local employment, found that while there was a statistically valid link between high-speed
fiber connections and economic growth, it was relatively weak, at between 0 percent and 0.2 percent. that study looked at 290 instances of fiber to the home deployments. 

Of course, some of the studied communities moved directly from dial-up access to broadband access, so it is not clear whether the fiber or speed account for the measured upside, or simply vanilla broadband, as compared to dial-up access. Some would suggest that is likely the case. In other words, it is not "superfast" broadband that accounts for the small measured economic impact, but broadband, even at slower speeds. 

As some other studies also have suggested, fast broadband is a two-edged sword. Consider the case of a gaming business. If skills exist locally, but adequate broadband does not, then presumably there will be a clear local jobs impact from supplying the broadband.

If, however, the local skills do not exist, then it is likely, even necessary, that a local firm look elsewhere for that talent. That could mean new jobs, but located elsewhere.

Others might note that the mere presence of broadband does not automatically allow most firms to take advantage of e-commerce,  e-marketing or supply chain transformation. The skills and experience to do so must also be present. Broadband, of any speed, therefore is a necessary but not sufficient driver of broader transformation. 


The study also notes that, outside of high-tech businesses, it is difficult to find good examples of how "superfast broadband," compared to "standard" flavors of broadband, actually would make a business difference in a four to five year period. 

To be sure, there arguably are network effects that will kick in at some point. But that, some might say, is the point. 

Such innovations take time to show meaningful impact. The example might be the application of computing to business tasks. At first, what people do is automate existing processes. Though helpful, the real advantages do not occur until the processes are fundamentally redesigned. And that takes time, and human learning. 

That is one reason why the cumulative information technology impact of all computing technologies seems to have taken decades to show meaningful positive changes. It isn't enough to automate existing tasks. Whole systems need to be recreated. 

Mobile Market Structures are Unstable: UK, France, U.S. Show Why

Vivendi's SFR mobile operation is reportedly talking to Iliad (owner of Free Mobile) about a merger. SFR also apparently is in talks with French cable operator Numericable about a merger of SFR with Numericable as well, Reuters reports. 

Those talks indicate that, after a period of relative stability, mobile market structure, in France and elsewhere, might be changing, because of market saturation and competition. 

In many Western European markets there are four, and sometimes five facilities-based mobile  service providers. That was sustainable in an earlier period where the mobile market was growing. 

But the issue has been whether four to five contestants are  "too many" suppliers for a stable market. In the United Kingdom, the formation of EE is another example, while in the U.S.market Sprint and T-Mobile USA are the contestants seen as inevitable parts of a future market consolidation.

With the recent mergers of T-Mobile USA and MetroPCS, and the purchase of Sprint by Softbank (assuming both transactions pass regulatory muster), there is once again an active discussion in many quarters about the future shape of the U.S. mobile service provider business.

What seems a safe observation, though, is that the number of successful mobile service providers will be few in number. The only question is “how few?” In many markets, there are four to five major providers, in terms of market share. But just how stable a market that is is questionable.

The Rule of Three holds nearly everywhere. While the percentage market share might vary, on an average, the top three mobile service providers control 93 percent of the market share in a given nation, irrespective of the regulatory framework.

Some might argue that scale effects account for the relatively small number of leading providers in many capital-intensive or consumer electronics businesses. At some point, the access business can have only so many facilities-based providers before most companies cannot get enough customers to make a profit.

Consolidation is the result. 

Do Smart Phones Really Lengthen Your Work Day by 2 Hours?

Much will be made of a study sponsored by Pixmedia that reportedly shows Britons work an additional 460 hours a year, on average, because of smart phones that allow them access to their email. 

The study by technology retailer Pixmania supposedly shows the average U.K. working day is between nine and 10 hours, with an additional two hours a day spent responding to or sending work emails, or making work calls.

Some will question the validity of "self reported" work hours. U.S. government surveys tend to show that although U.S. employees "work longer hours" than they used, to, the differences are relatively slight. 

Numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show a very gradually rising trend through the 1990s that has only just recently tapered off, hovering somewhere just north of 40 hours weekly.

To be sure, the notion that people are being asked to work longer hours seems intuitively true, given job cuts since the Great Recession of 2008. The simple reality is that if the same amount of work has to be done, and there are fewer people to do that work, hours will lengthen. 

Also, some employers deliberately are choosing to employ fewer workers, but pay overtime, rather than hire new workers. All of that will tend to lengthen the average workday. Smart phones might have almost nothing to do with the trend. 

A survey sponsored by global professional services company Towers Watson and WorldatWork, an international association of human resource professionals, shows that nearly two thirds of respondents expect their employees to work more hours now than they did prior to the 2008 Great Recession and see this trend continuing for some time.

Without access to the actual Pixmania research methodology, it is difficult to assess the validity of the claims. But some might question whether typical self-reported daily work hours really do amount to 12 hours, with or without smart phones. 

More than 90 per cent of office workers have an email-enabled phone, with a third accessing them more than 20 times a day, the study apparently found. That has the ring of truth, but does not necessarily translate to a "longer work day."

Almost one in ten of the Pixmedia respondents said they spent up to three hours outside their normal working day checking work emails, and even those without a smart phone check emails on their home computer. Some checking is quite plausible. "Three hours" seems implausible. 


Also, there is a long-term change in work hours in the U.S. economy, for example. "Between 1979 and 2002, the frequency of long work hours increased by 14.4 percentage points among the top quintile of wage earners, but fell by 6.7 percentage points in the lowest quintile," according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Research.

In other words, high-income workers do work longer hours, but lower-income workers spend less time on the job. 

There is some truth to the notion that 40 hours of work is sort of considered "part time" work. 

During most of the 1900s, the hours of work declined for most American men, NBER says.  But around 1970, the share of employed men regularly working more than 50 hours per week began to increase. 

In fact, the share of employed, 25-to-64-year-old men who usually work 50 or more hours per week on their main job rose from 14.7 percent in 1980 to 18.5 percent in 2001.

This shift was especially pronounced among highly educated, high-wage, salaried, and older men. For college-educated men, the proportion working 50 hours or more climbed from 22.2 percent to 30.5 percent in these two decades, NBER says. 

Between 1979 and 2002, the frequency of long work hours increased by 14.4 percentage points among the top quintile of wage earners, but fell by 6.7 percentage points in the lowest quintile. There was no increase at all in work hours among high-school dropouts.

The point is that long term shifts in work hours might be occurring, but there also are likely impacts from economic conditions, the nature of work, the places where work occurs and the motivation to do such work. Smart phones are only a way of doing that work, not its cause. 

Value Based Pricing is Creeping into the Communications Business

“Value based pricing” has been discussed in the communications industry for some time, the theory being that it makes more sense to charge customers for communications-based services on the perceived “value” of the applications or access. 

The principle is similar to use of toll lanes on highways at rush hour. Some consumers are willing to pay extra to use the toll lanes. Most do not prefer to do so. To be sure, current regulatory rules that require all Internet access to be supplied in "best effort" fashion are impediments that prohibit service providers from creating such differentiated products. 

Still, when networks are congested, for example, many consumers will be willing to pay for priority access. That is an example of value based pricing. 

But value based pricing has been used for quite a long time in the communications business, in some ways. 

You might argue that the value of text messaging is not, in fact, directly related to its cost of supply, but on the usefulness of the app.

The shift to some modified version of “consumption-based” pricing for high-speed access, in place of an undifferentiated “unlimited” usage plan, is another example.

In the coming years, more "communication services" might be sold as part of some other product. Using mobile networks to deliver content to tablets provides one example, where the product a customer buys is a book, for example, and the network price is simply embedded into the overall cost of the delivered content. 

The same is true of video entertainment services. Customers want the video, not the network that delivers the video. The amount of network resources used to deliver HBO is not different from delivering an ad-supported news channel. But the price of those products is quite different.

In a similar way, mobile banking, payments or wallet services “use the network,” but the value proposition for end users is the applications. Likewise, text messaging is valuable to customers, but it is the ability to send and receive messages that is bought, not the use of the network.

Apple iPhone Owner Loyalty Declines, For the First Time Ever

For the first time since the Apple iPhone was released in 2007, the number of iPhone owners who say they definitely will or probably will purchase their next phone from the same brand has declined, a survey by Strategy Analytics shows. 

The survey found 75 percent of iPhone owners in Western Europe say they are likely to buy their next phone from Apple, down from 88 percent in 2011. Though most suppliers would love to have such "repeat buy" sentiment, that is a decline from all past surveys. 

U.S. repeat purchase intentions also have dipped a bit, down from 93 percent in 2011 to 88 percent in 2012, Strategy Analytics says. 

Internet Access Goes "Mobile First"

Consumers are migrating away from PC-based Internet usage and are increasingly using mobile devices as their default gateway to the Internet, according to  International Data Corporation. That shift to "mobile first" Internet access is especially pronounced in the U.S. market. 

In fact, perhaps for the first time, the number of people using PCs for Internet access is shrinking, even as PC access grows elsewhere in the world. That doesn't necessarily mean the number of fixed access lines drops, only that PCs are not the devices using those connections. 



Other studies back up those contentions. The use of mobile devices to access the Internet is becoming the medium of choice, with 69 percent of all Internet users surveyed doing so daily, according to Mobile Web Watch 2012, a study of consumers in Europe, Latin America and South Africa conducted by Accenture..

In addition, consumers are using multiple devices to connect to the web, including smart phones (61 percent), netbooks (37 percent), and tablets (22 percent), the Accenture study suggests.

The study found that emerging economies such as Brazil, South Africa and Russia also have rapidly adopted mobile devices (more than 70 percent, on average) to access the Internet, Accenture says.

Given their affordability, smart phones are more likely than other devices to serve as access gateways to the Internet in these emerging markets. This trend is set to continue, with a higher percentage of respondents in emerging markets expressing their intention to buy a Web-enabled mobile phone in the near future (Brazil, 78 percent;  Russia, 73 percent; Mexico, 61 percent; and South Africa, 57 percent) as compared with an average of 46 percent for all countries surveyed.

In developed European economies, mobile Internet is also on the rise. In Germany, adoption of mobile Internet access using smart phones has tripled since 2010 (from 17 to 51 percent), the study found.

In Switzerland, today 67 percent of respondents use Web-enabled mobile phones to go online, compared to 27 percent in 2010. In Austria, the percentage of mobile Internet users has doubled in two years (from 31 to 62 percent).

Information apps, such as train schedules, the weather, or news are the most popular downloaded apps, according to 72 percent of survey respondents, followed closely by entertainment apps (70 percent).

And there is confirmation of the importance of access network quality. Fully 85 percent of the respondents said that the “quality of the network” was the most important factor in selecting a smart phone or tablet.
 
As you would expect, “communications” leads applications used frequently by mobile Internet users. Sending or receiving e-mails through an installed program is the most popular feature among all respondents (70 percent), followed by accessing online communities (62 percent) and instant messaging (61 percent).

Respondents in the emerging markets of Mexico and South Africa are the biggest users of mobile email and instant messaging (more than 80 percent of respondents in both countries).  Among all respondents, 27 percent use their mobile device for tweeting and blogging, and 46 percent use mobile devices to conduct banking transactions.



In the United States., the number of people accessing the Internet through PCs will shrink from 240 million consumers in 2012 to 225 million in 2016. At the same time, the number of mobile users will increase from 174 million to 265 million.

In 2015, for the first time ever, there will be more U.S. consumers accessing the Internet through mobile devices than through PCs.

"There has been much talk about how the future of the Internet will be mobile first and PC second. In the United States, that future is now," says  Karsten Weide, IDC program vice president.

Online PC activities will be affected as consumers take their usage mobile. That, in turn, is going to shape the nature of business models and revenue streams for all other suppliers in the mobile Internet ecosystem. 

IDC expects that the share of users accessing social networks such as Facebook on their PCs will decline from 66 percent in 2012 to 52 percent in 2016, for example.

Global mobile advertising will grow from $6 billion in 2011 to $28.8 billion in 2016.

Global  business-to-consumer mobile commerce spending will grow six fold between 2011 and 2016, as well, reaching $223 billion by 2016, IDC says. 

"The Great PC exodus on the Internet is happening because the PC was never truly a consumer product," added Weide. "Many consumers use them because there was no better alternative. Now, with the huge and growing installed base of more user-friendly tablets and smartphones, there are."