LTE Speed: Devices Matter

Long Term Evolution speeds are affected by population density, bandwidth available to create channels and even device performance, so all measurements of LTE "speed" must be qualified. 

The countries where OpenSignal has recorded the fastest average LTE speeds tend to be ones where the population is heavily concentrated in a small number of urban centers. 

Countries with a population that is more evenly spread seem to perform slightly worse, perhaps due to the difficulty of rolling-out LTE over a larger geographic area, OpenSignal says.

"Our methodology measures how the network is experienced and therefore is considerably affected by device variance," OpenSignal says. 

Sweden has the fastest LTE network at 22.1 Mbps, while Japan has the slowest LTE network at 7.1 Mbps, a recent analysis indicates. 

The average LTE speed globally is 10.4 Mbps, OpenSignal says.


Download speed in Mbps by country and network

Does OTT Steal Revenue or Destroy Markets?

What is the real threat Skype and other over the top apps pose to voice revenues? In similar manner, what is the threat WhatsApp poses to text messaging? The immediate response might be that the OTT alternatives shift revenue from carriers to third party apps.

That is a logical response. But one might argue that It isn’t so much that the OTT providers cannibalize or shift so much legacy revenue, in a direct sense, as that they “destroy” the legacy market and revenue stream .

Analysts point out that companies like WhatsApp will generate 35 percent of the total messaging traffic in 2016, but only eight percent of the revenues, for example.

Likewise, Skype in 2008 generated huge call volumes, but relatively little revenue. Skype more arguably does displace minutes of use. While international traffic growth is slowing, traffic from over the top applications and services is growing fast. TeleGeography estimates that cross-border Skype-to-Skype voice and video traffic grew 44 percent in 2012, to 167 billion minutes, for example.


The point, it might be argued, is that OTT apps do not so much “take revenue” from carriers as earn a bit of revenue while essentially turning a significant revenue generating business into a feature.

TeleGeography data does show that international telephone traffic grew five percent in 2012, to 490 billion minutes. In part, that is a result of more people on the planet using mobile phones.

Whether revenue actually is growing is the bigger issue, some might say. Surprisingly, it is very hard to answer the question of whether international long distance revenue, as opposed to call volume, is growing, remaining the same, or declining.

Most likely, international long distance revenues are flat, with higher call volumes helping to compensate for declining average revenue per unit.

International Telephone and Skype Traffic, 2005-2012

Source: TeleGeography

Could Apple Turn iTunes into a "Bank?"

Could Apple use iTunes to create some sort of banking or payment or lending service? Some think Apple could do so. 

Apple has filed a patent for an "ad hoc cash dispensing network" that allows users to exchange 

The user of a client terminal (an iOS device, presumably) sends a request for cash to the cash-dispensing server. 

Based on location, the cash-dispensing server locates one or more other users that are close to the requesting user and verifies that at least one of these proximate users is willing and able to provide the requested amount of cash. 

Following the transfer of cash between the parties, the requesting user's account is charged for the service while the providing user's account (iTunes, presumably) is credited for the service.

Apple presumably would charge a service fee that’s shared with the lender. 

That actually does not make as much sense to me as if the system became way to refresh or recharge a person's credit or debit card, on a peer to peer basis, especially for moderate amounts of money. 

That way, no actual cash changes hands. The lender gets a credit in his or her iTunes account, plus part of a service fee. The "borrower" gets additional borrowing capability on a credit or debit card. 

Does the U.S. Have a Broadband Problem?

Is U.S. high speed access “a problem” or not? Observers still cannot agree. A new study by the
Information Technology and  Innovation Foundation suggests there isn’t much of a problem, though some will disagree.

Much depends on one’s point of view. When looking only at nominal prices, or typical access speeds, one will tend to think the U.S. situation is not so good, as the United States never ranks among the top countries on such scales.

But the situation looks different when looking at access prices as a percentage of typical household income, as a percentage of disposable income, or some other metrics, such as mobile broadband speeds, or “entry level” pricing, rather than “highest speed” pricing, or pricing within triple-play bundles, or percentage of users with the fastest speeds.

But  “neutral” observers have for some time been pointing out that, in the U.S. market, broadband availability no longer is the key barrier to adoption. Instead, people can buy, but significant numbers of people choose not to buy.

In other words, these days adoption “barriers” are generally encountered because people do not want to buy broadband. That is a different “problem” than broadband access literally being unavailable.

Some would argue the “broadband has value” gap is a problem that naturally resolves itself, much as the “problem” of people not using mobile phones or text messaging likewise resolved itself, once people figured out the value proposition.

Still, some might argue that “quality” or “price” remain big issues. Others might argue that, as a percentage of typical household or personal income, U.S. broadband access prices are among the lowest in the world.

Also, consumers are fully capable of exercising choice, and a significant percentage of consumers seem to prefer mobile broadband as their primary way of using the Internet, not “fixed network” access.

In fact, higher percentages of some U.S. groups prefer mobile access to fixed access. It is a choice, in other words. Such consumers might depress demand for fixed broadband. But that preference for mobile access is not a problem, but a choice.

Apple's Next Big Thing

Apple will definitely try and disrupt another big business soon. That is fair to say. It has been three years since the iPad introduction, and five and a half years since the iPhone launch. 

So one has to expect something. The issue is what market Apple can create or reshape that is big enough to matter. 

"That's how Apple has done it," said Charlie Wolf, a vice president with research firm Needham and Company who has followed Apple since 1985. "But I can't identify any market that Apple can easily enter and disrupt right now -- that's with Steve Jobs, or without Steve Jobs."

Speculation the past few years has been about televisions. But some of us don't see that. Not that Apple wouldn't try. It's just hard to see how changing the interface, or integrating online with broadcast TV, will add enough value to drive Apple success on the level of the iPad or iPhone. 

Wrist computers might seem to be in the same category. But smart phones already have functionally disrupted the camera, clock, radio and navigation device categories. Tablets are disrupting the e-book reader market and the broader content consumption device area (iPods did it to music players earlier). 

It isn't that it it would be fun (necessary for Apple) to see Apple revolutionize something else we aren't thinking about. It's just hard to imagine what that might be. 

41% of "Lifeline" Mobile Service Did Not, Could Not, Prove Eligibility

A review of "Lifeline"mobile service conducted by the Federal Communications Commission showed that 41 percent of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.

Intel’s Web TV Service Won't Lower Your Bills

Intel hopes it can create a successful, and sizable new business selling video entertainment delivered "over the top." But don't count on that service saving you money, or "disrupting" the video subscription business. It won't.

As planned, the new service requires that a customer first buy a video subscription service, then pay for the Intel offerings, and use an Intel decoder box as well.  Intel’s web TV service will not offer 
la carte access to channels and networks, either. 

Disruptive? Not really.