Google Fiber Keeps Lead Atop Netflix ISP Speed Index

Though you might argue the advantages are not so great, Google Fiber seems to be opening up a consistent “experienced bandwidth” advantage compared to all other fixed network providers, according to the latest Netflix analysis of typical streaming speeds for Netflix content.

The reason Google Fiber does not have a much-wider advantage is that Netflix prefers to stream at constant rates, rather than adapting to the highest access bandwidth it might find it has access to.

For video experience, constant rates are most helpful.

Gigabit Mobile Networks?

For practical reasons, each successive generation of mobile networks has used higher and different frequencies, at least at first.

The reasons are simple enough. The new network has to be built and then operated at the same time that the older network or networks remain in operation. 

Over time, the older frequencies are reclaimed, but the principle has been clear enough: each new network uses higher frequencies.

Also, as a rule, each new succeeding network has required bigger channels. Where analog networks used 30 kHz, 2G used up to 200 kHz. 3G networks used allocations up to 5 MHz, while 4G networks can use channels as big as 40 MHz (though typically paired 10 MHz or paired 20 MHz appears already to be most common). 

In some cases, it is possible to reuse existing spectrum, as regulators in the United Kingdom expect to be able to do by converting former TV spectrum to mobile applications in the 700-MHz bands.

In other markets, that option likewise could exist, but one issue could be the time and expense of "clearing" existing users from the spectrum. In some cases, where new spectrum is available, it might be reasonable to use that new spectrum, including spectrum mostly in the past considered most suitable for microwave backhaul. 

That of course has propagation and bandwidth implications. As a rule, the basic trade off is distance and bandwidth: lower frequencies propagate further, but higher frequencies can carry more information, for any given amount of spectrum. In other words, 10 MHz at 700 MHz travels much further than 10 MHz worth of signals at 2 GHz. 

That has engineers working on ways to compensate for propagation characteristics of much-higher frequencies expected to be used for future fifth generation 5G networks that will follow 4G in roughly a decade. 

Samsung says it now has an experimental system supporting 1 Gbps in the 28 GHz band using adaptive array transceiver technology with 64 antenna elements. Samsung believes 10 Gbps is feasible using the approach. 

In the past such frequencies were considered unsuitable for access applications, though more suitable for backhaul. In the United States, the LMDS service, originally conceived of as a way to provide fixed wireless "cable TV,"  occupies the following spectrum blocks:

27.5 – 28.35 GHz
29.1 – 29.25 GHz
31.075 – 31.225 GHz
31.0 – 31.075 GHz
31.225 – 31.3 GHz

Though there were failed attempts to re-purpose LMDS spectrum for communications use around the time of the Internet bubble, those efforts failed, partly for technology cost reasons and partly because of lack of demand. But technology gets better over time. So does cost. 

So the issue is whether higher frequencies, in addition to supporting mobile industry needs, might also be allocated for non-licensed users as well. If regulators really want more competition to the dominant ISPs, on a facilities-based basis, they will have to look at that. 

ESPN Considers Subsidizing Mobile Data Plans

ESPN is at least considering a scenario where it would pay for bandwidth consumed by mobile users of its content and apps, removing a barrier to usage, as ESPN content consumption would not count against a user's data cap. 

In principle, that is similar to the business arrangement Amazon has with AT&T to deliver Kindle content to tablet users. Amazon downloads are paid for by Amazon, so the end user does not incur usage that counts against a consumption cap. 

Such a move by ESPN would be quite significant, as it would effectively create a new revenue stream for mobile ISPs while removing a barrier to end user consumption of highly-valued content. 

Under one scenario, the company would pay a carrier to guarantee that people viewing ESPN mobile content wouldn't have that usage counted toward their monthly data caps.

Some will object to such business deals between ISPs and app providers. The logic is that it potentially creates an uneven playing field for ESPN and other providers of similar content. Others will argue such deals are not dissimilar from app provider use of content delivery networks to enhance end user experience. 

App providers using CDNs do have an experience advantage over other firms that do not use CDNs. 

But such a plan would have clear consumer benefits, would create another revenue stream for mobile ISPs clamoring for such new revenue sources and would remove a key barrier to use of ESPN content on a mobile device, principally the usage implications. 

Some might say the possible new approach is a reasonable application of the notion that innovations within the ecosystem should occur as parties see mutual benefit, and not from rules imposed from the outside. 

Still, many app providers would resist such a precedent, and some think the Federal Communications Commission would almost certainly conclude it has to evaluate such deals as possibly requiring application of "network neutrality" rules to mobile networks, even though mobile networks presently are exempt from the "best effort only" approach applied to fixed network providers. 

Opinions of course will vary. Some believe network neutrality should not apply to any ISPs, since it prohibits creation of features end users might themselves want, such as quality of service guarantees, preference for voice, videoconferencing or video entertainment streams, when those are used. 

Others believe network neutrality rules are fairer to small app providers and will help prevent marketplace abuses, such as ISPs favoring their own content over similar content provided by unaffiliated parties.

Others would argue that if online content providers are to garner advertising revenues commensurate with viewership and engagement, then impediments to viewership need to be overcome. And there is no question but that data caps discourage usage. 

Large Internet service providers have in the past pointedly suggested that application providers pay them for access to their networks and customers. The argument, in part, rests on the fact that some apps, especially video entertainment apps, represent unusually large demands on the network. 

The wider context is that shares of revenue within the Internet ecosystem are viewed as disproportionate, at least by ISPs. But the possible ESPN approach simultaneously provides end user benefit, value for ESPN and mobile ISPs. 

It's a big deal.

Top Line Revenue is Today's Telco Problem; Will Tomorrow's Problem be Bankruptcy?

It would not be unfair to note that most European fixed line telcos now are facing a revenue decline of significant proportions. BT Group’s revenue fell five percent, year over year, for the period ending March 31, 2013. 

Underlying revenue excluding transit, was down three percent . 

Deutsche Telekom revenue declined 4.5 percent, year over year, its most-recent earnings report showed.

Telefónica had similar issues in the first quarter. Revenues were down 8.8 percent, or down 1.6 percent on an organic basis, not including currency effects. The bright spot was Telefónica Latinoamérica, which accounted for 51 percent of consolidated revenues and grew nearly three percent, year over year.

To be sure, European telcos are dealing with unhelpful changes in wholesale tariffs and roaming revenue, plus sluggish economic conditions. The longer term issue is what will constitute a “turnaround” in fortunes, and whether such a turnaround is possible.

Executives remain optimistic: they have to. Telcos can point to tough economic conditions, which is true enough. They will rightly note the impact of mandatory price reductions in the wholesale part of their businesses. 

But consumers are behaving differently: they are talking less, texting less, dropping landline service. 

European telco executives argue that consolidation is needed to help shore up business cases. That's likely true enough. Also, operating costs are simply too high, and it isn't so clear how much control the carriers might have in that regard. Most tier one service providers have huge pension obligations and many face pressure from governments not to cut jobs. 

But the bigger problem is the erosion of customers and the gap between new revenue sources and legacy sources. No major telco has gone bankrupt yet. But that is not an impossibility. 

McCain Introduces Bill for 'a la Carte' Cable TV

Bills get introduced in Congress all the time, for lots of reasons. Not all, in fact, quite few, have any chance of passage. A new bill to force unbundling is probably not going to result in new legislation. Broadcasters, programming networks and cable operators all will oppose it.

Many of us would say we prefer unbundling. But the implications are less certain than many think. For many consumers,  prices probably would not change.  Most people watch a dozen channels.

At $10 per channel, most consumers would not see savings (assuming sales are channels, not shows or series).

Choice still would be nice. But some wouldn't expect savings, for every consumer,  with every selection of channels.

Lots of other things would change as well. Smaller networks would go user direct. And the shift to online delivery would accelerate.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Mashable/~3/busXwInONMU/

Telecom P/E Multiples Overextended?

"Bubble" is too strong a word. But multiples are too high.

http://on.barrons.com/10d3aRG

Aio Wireless Differentiates Prepaid from Postpaid

The big deal for a large mobile service provider, when addressing the prepaid segment of the market, is to differentiate, protecting the perceived value of postpaid service while still offering an option for customers who prefer prepaid.

Aio Wireless, the new AT&T prepaid brand, will do so by not offering Long Term Evolution access. Aio expects the service to roll out in multiple markets across the United States during 2013, with an initial launch in Houston, Orlando and Tampa.