Google Project Loon Refines Balloon Control

Since June 2013, when Google's Project Loon became public knowledge, Google has learned to project balloon trajectories twice as far in advance, while also getting 300 percent better performance out of the pump that allows the balloons to change altitudes.



That is important because the pump is what enables the balloon to change altitudes and catch needed air currents. 



Google is experimenting with balloons, as Facebook is testing drones and satellites, as ways to rapidly extend a minimum level of Internet access to billions of people in the Global South who do not, at present, have such access.



The exotic techniques are necessary because all existing methods of providing terrestrial Internet access cost too much, and take too long to deploy, if the assumption is that the intended user really cannot afford to pay enough to support the deployment of such networks.



As it was mobile networks that finally disrupted the older notion that fixed networks were how most people in the developing world would get access to telephone service, now the big application providers are looking for ways to leapfrog even mobile networks in an effort to make a big breakthrough in Internet access.

Will Google Become a Mobile Operator?

Google executives have been mulling the possibility of Google becoming a mobile service provider, according to The Information.

In all likelihood, Google would become a mobile virtual network operator, to do so, so it could offer a triple play mobile-plus gigabit high speed access plus entertainment video package in areas where Google Fiber operates. 

Will EU "Connected Continent" Plan Spur Investment, or Not?

European Union Connected Continent legislation ending all roaming charges within the EU, creating a network neutrality framework and also circumscribing the ways Internet service providers advertise and market their services are part of a package approved by the European Parliament.

The legislation faces another vote in Parliament, and then must be approved by member states, so the final version of the rules could change.

There are questions large and small, though. The specific proposals, which might be further modified, are easiest to explain.

For mobile service providers, the biggest change is the complete ban on roaming charges within EU countries. For application providers, the biggest consequence is anti-blocking rules, referred to as network neutrality, but arguably better described as prohibiting any Internet service provider from blocking lawful apps.

Among other consumer protection provisions, ISPs will have to modify their marketing, refraining from using “up to” clauses when referring to access speed. Instead, ISPs will be required to supply information on the “average speeds” they actually provide to their customers during normal and peak times.

The long-term questions are harder to assess. The legislation is supposed to unlock investment in next generation networks. But some do not believe this will happen, in part because the rules make reliance on wholesale access to new markets even easier.

Strand Consult thinks the EU communications market will face greater business risk as a result, in part from arbitrage of prices between high-cost and low-cost markets.

The vote will need to be approved by Council of Ministers, which is unlikely before the EU Parliamentary elections in May 2014.  

“The package raises more questions than it answers and exacerbates the challenges that the EU and the telecommunications industry have and will have the next four to five years, Strand Consult argues.

“We believe that the telecommunications market in Europe will be somewhat similar to a free fall over the next four to five years,” Strand Consult predicts.

Nor will the new rules spur needed investment in next generation infrastructure, Strand Consult argues.

Consumers will be able to terminate their contracts if there is a significant and non-temporary discrepancy between what they were promised and the service they actually get, in terms of access speed.

That will be a bit of a statistical challenge, since actual speeds experienced by any user, at any time, will depend on what other users sharing access resources are doing. Additionally, access speed will hinge on devices used with the access connection, as well.

The legislation also helps harmonize spectrum allocation across the EU, and simplifies regulations in ways that will make pan-EU services easier to create.

Service providers will have the chance to operate in all countries through a single EU authorization, and the chance to deal with that one authority on other licensing issues, instead of being required to get separate licenses in each member nation.

In other words, service providers would gain pan-EU legal certainty and equal regulatory treatment.

Spectrum policies also will be harmonized, a move that is expected primarily to benefit 4G Long Term Evolution mobile networks. Wholesale access policies likewise will be standardized to a greater extent across borders, and essentially making it easier for competitors to enter new markets using wholesale access mechanisms.

Service providers, as you would guess, are not happy with many of the new rules. Service providers probably are resigned to the end of roaming fees, but the network neutrality rules, which would prevent creation of new quality assured services, likely will get more resistance as the rules are considered by each of the national regulators who must also agree.

When Will "Smartphones" Just be "Phones?"

"New shipments" are not "installed base,"  but sooner or later, new shipments represent the installed base, as older devices are retired. By that metric, "smartphones" relatively soon will simply be "phones," as feature phone shipments continue to decline.

The full process might take a decade or so, but is inevitable, as smartphone prices, at least for some models, continue to fall.

Smartphones expected to account for 73 percent of total handsets sold in 2018.

Emerging markets will be the driving force behind the global smartphone sales growth, with 70 percent of total smartphone sales originating in this part of the world in 2018, according to Pyramid Research.

Global smartphone average selling prices will gradually decline from the current $214 to $166 in 2018, Pyramid Research also believes.

But average selling prices will be below $100 across the poorest countries in the emerging world.

The present conventional wisdom is that getting smartphones into the hands of two billion people in developing regions will require a retail price of about $50.

source: Pyramid Research 



source: Business Insider


source: Business Insider

U.S. Mobile Price War Just Heated Up

Though a few seem to believe there really is not a price war going on in the U.S. mobile market, Verizon Wireless just lowered prices to match AT&T Wireless shared plans, in particular the “headline” offer of 4 phones, with a shared 10 GB of mobile data, for $160 a month.

Some have predicted the biggest price war in U.S. mobile history. Others have argued there is in fact no price war going on. But one might argue that a price war is indeed under way, despite evidence that U.S. mobile service provider revenues and profit margins have not been affected.

One might well argue that has been true, up to this point. But one might expect to start seeing more evidence in the coming quarters, as Verizon Wireless, which some had perhaps hoped would not participate, now seems to be responding to AT&T’s price attack in the key shared user plans.

Average monthly revenue per postpaid customer across the U.S mobile industry rose 2.2 percent to $61.15 in the fourth quarter of 2013, according to New Street Research.

That is up more than $5 per user from the first quarter of 2010, when the same measure was at $55.80. That is one reason some think there actually is no price war going on. But with Verizon Wireless now moving to match AT&T Mobility’s lower prices on shared plans, the possibility of declines in average revenue per account now is growing.

To be sure, Verizon prefers to count only “revenue per account,” not revenue per user. In the end, the impact of a pricing war should appear, no matter which approach is used.

But there are lots of moving parts. More users are opting for smartphones, which almost always carriers a significant revenue boost in the form of new mobile data fees. U.S mobile user adoption of smartphones is about 65 percent, so there is still some room to run in terms of adding mobile data revenues.

And that will disguise some of the price cutting. But it is fairly clear that Verizon Wireless would not have matched the AT&T Mobility pricing on shared plans were AT&T not getting traction with the offer.

Yes, there is a price war going on, and it appears to be escalating.  

Does the Internet Actually Improve Productivity?

Most of us instinctively believe that applying more computing and communications necessarily improves productivity, even when we can’t really measure it. High speed access and smartphones provide examples. We just figure those tools make us more productive.

Whether that is the case or not actually is questionable, as counterintuitive as it might seem.

The point is that investments do not always immediately translate into effective productivity results. This productivity paradox was apparent for much of the 1980s and 1990s, when one might have struggled to identify clear evidence of productivity gains from a rather massive investment in information technology.

Some would say the uncertainty covers a wider span of time, dating back to the 1970s and including even the “Internet” years from 2000 to the present.

Computing power in the U.S. economy increased by more than two orders of magnitude between 1970 and 1990, for example, yet productivity, especially in the service sector, stagnated).

And though it seems counter-intuitive, even the Internet has not clearly affected economy-wide productivity. Some might argue that is because we are not measuring properly. It is hard to assign a value to activities that have no incremental cost, such as listening to a streamed song instead of buying a compact disc.

Still, “revenue” might be decreasing, even if usage is growing, in many industries. That’s the paradox, even in a time when the Internet seems so obviously to be providing higher value.

A productivity gain, by definition, means getting more output from less input. Perversely, very large productivity gains will shrink an industry, in measurable terms.

Also, how people use high speed access is more important than “how fast” they can use it, at many levels.

In other words, it is “how” technology is used productively that counts, not the amount of raw computing power or connectivity.

It is one thing when high speed access is applied effectively to “work” processes. It might be something else if those connections are used to watch entertainment video. Some might point to historical precedents, such as the fact that electricity took 40 years to change productivity in measurable ways.

By that measure, we should start to see measurable gains, soon, many would argue. Some would argue we already are seeing the gains. Economists just cannot measure the gains, is the argument.

In Mobile, Sometimes the First Winds Up Last

Mobile networks never remain constant, in terms of capacity, end user demand or coverage. Within any 24-hour period, demand will shift even on any single operator’s network as people move about.

Operators add new capacity, while the number of users of data bandwidth also changes virtually daily, so demand and supply are dynamic.

That means any snapshot of how fast a mobile network might be, or how extensive its coverage, will change over time. The latest study by Open Signal of Long Term Evolution networks globally shows how fluid speeds are, over time.

Some networks “got faster,” while others “got slower,” a function of supply and demand. Networks that got faster likely added supply, but did not see a commensurate increase in usage.

Networks that got slower probably “suffered” because users were added to existing networks faster than supply investments, increasing contention for available bandwidth.

So it is that U.S LTE networks, overall, showed slower average speeds in the second half of 2013, compared to the first half of 2013, with “average speeds” decreasing 32 percent.

Among the possible reasons, one might argue, are saturation of some cell sites operated by Verizon, growing demand on all the networks and relatively slow performance on Sprint’s network, for example.

MetroPCS averaged just 2.4 Mbps; Sprint 4.2 Mbps, for example. Verizon averaged 7.6 Mbps while AT&T averaged 8.9 Mbps.

Likewise, U.S. consumers are rapidly approaching smartphone ownership levels of the United Kingdom, an early leader in smartphone adoption.

According to eMarketer, 65 percent of U.S. mobile phone users have smartphones, compared to 66 percent of U.K. users.

The point is that communication markets are dynamic. As much as European policymakers might worry about “Europe falling behind,” it wasn’t so long ago that the U.S. market was considered “behind,” on several measures of mobile adoption.

Things change. A perception of “being behind” will spur investment. Also, there is a tendency to be crudely deterministic about correlations between attributes such as broadband speed and other economic outputs.

How people use high speed access is more important than “how fast” they can use it, at many levels.

In other words, it is “how” technology is used productively that counts, not the amount of raw computing power or connectivity.