Stand-alone Streamed HBO Might Cannibalize Linear HBO Quite a Lot, Study Suggests

HBO keeps arguing that its new streaming service targets consumers who buy high speed access, but not linear video subscriptions or HBO. In other words, a stand-alone, streamed version of HBO will not cannibalize HBO as sold by its video distributiors.

But there are some hints in a new survey that as much as 91 percent of the most-likely buyers of a streamed, stand-alone HBO service are, in fact, present buyers of HBO as part of their linear video subscriptions.

If so, the risk of cannibalization of linear versions of HBO, or perhaps even the whole linear video subscription, is extremely high. 

The new study by Parks Associates  finds 17 percent of U.S. broadband households are likely to subscribe to an over-the-top (OTT) video service from HBO.

Among these likely subscribers, 91 percent are currently buying linear video subscriptions, and nearly half say they would cancel their linear subscription service after subscribing to theHBO OTT service.

The research firm reports the average head of household in a U.S. broadband household watches nearly 3.5 hours of OTT video each week on a TV set.

Households with high speed access in 2010 consumed about 1.6 hours a week of Internet delivered video. In 2014, such households watched three hours a week.

In 2010, about 17 percent of video viewing in high speed access homes •was on devices other than the TV. By 2014, that figure increased to over 31 percent.

As you might guess, consumer younger than 35 watch less than seven hours a week of linear video on a TV. In 2013, the typical U.S. adult watched 4.5 hours a day. In other words, typical weekly TV viewing in 2013 represented 31.5 hours.  

Young consumers are also far more likely to say that online video is just as good as subscription TV, Parks Associates says.

The average monthly amount paid by broadband households for a linear TV subscription service has grownfrom $74 to $82 over the past three years, says Parks Associates.

The average amount paid per month for a triple play package (subscription TV, landline voice, and broadband) increased from $146 to $160 over the same period.

T-Mobile US Alters Credit Policies to Spur Smartphone Purchases

T-Mobile US, in a new credit policy it calls “Smartphone Equality,” will use a different approach to assessing potential customer credit, a move T-Mobile US expects will allow it to sell smartphones to a significant number of new customers.

The problem, says John Legere, T-Mobile US CEO, is that as many as 50 percent of potential buyers do not qualify for the best plans T-Mobile US and other leading U.S. mobile service providers offer.

“For years, companies have based decisions about who gets the best prices and even access to basic products and services solely on credit scores churned out by software from a credit bureau,” says Legere.

“With today’s announcement, every T-Mobile customer who’s paid their wireless phone bill on time for 12 straight months will qualify for our very best device pricing on every smartphone and tablet we sell − including zero down with no interest and no credit check,” says Legere.

Legere is banking on one key assumption: that “our relationship with that customer is actually a better predictor of future behavior than their credit history.”

Some will worry about the potential exposure T-Mobile US might be taking in terms of bad debt. Others will look for further pressure on AT&T and Verizon net customer additions.

Verizon Wireless added 2.1 million net retail connections in the fourth quarter of 2014, including close to two million net retail postpaid connections.

On the other hand, churn was  higher than usual churn and profit margins dipped. Verizon reported a quarterly loss of 54 cents per share, compared with earnings per share of $1.76 in the fourth quarter of  2013, based in part on charges related to benefit and pension plans.

T-Mobile US is counting on the new policies to increase the number of smartphone and tablet customers in its customer base, a development that spurs adoption of mobile data plans and bigger mobile data plans.

More Channel Conflict in U.S.. Mobile Business

The loosely-coupled Internet ecosystem perhaps is not like some other tightly-coupled ecosystems that might tend to break down if there were channel conflict.

In some industries, industry segments have contractual relationships with each other, because the output from one segment is a necessary input for the next segment.

That is not true of the Internet ecosystem, where, almost by design, the value chain can work, to an extent, without any formal business relationships between participants, because the value chain is loosely coupled.

And channel conflict is growing within the Internet ecosystem. Google, for example, works on a number of fronts to reduce device and Internet access prices, for example.

And is when Google is not directly competing with other participants in the value chain, by becoming an Internet service provider in its own right, producing its own tablets and phones, or perhaps by becoming a mobile service provider as well.

That is neither illegal nor unethical. One might argue it is a rational business strategy. But it is a strategy built on channel conflict, perhaps a new type of competitive dynamic in a business with intra-segment competition.

In other words, mobile service providers are used to competing with each other. Telcos and cable TV companies are used to competing in the fixed network triple play business. App providers are used to competing with other app providers in many segments.

What has been happening more often is that competition now is developing between providers in different segments.

Recently, the U.S, mobile service provider business has been in the throes of a fierce marketing battle. Now, if Google enters the business, in another attempt to force down prices of yet another segment of the Internet ecosystem, channel conflict will grow even more.

Up to a point, one might argue that is a healthy thing, in the sense of markets producing better products, at lower cost. But channel conflict produces lots of friction between segments, not only within each segment.

Google Reportedly to Enter U.S Mobile Service Provider Market

Google reportedly is considering becoming a full-fledged mobile service provider in the U.S. market, entering the market as a mobile virtual network operator. The rumor is not new. Google has been looking at becoming a mobile ISP for some time.

Google might arguably have been motivated to launch Google Fiber to create widespread pressure on other leading Internet service providers to up their speeds. 

The move into mobile likely has several strategic drivers. Google has to transition to a new role in mobility as the value of its traditional search business is pressured by mobile alternatives for its traditional search-driven advertising business. 

That might account for the move into mobile operating systems, devices and apps. 

But Google also benefits from lower Internet access prices, and might believe its own entry could help drive down mobile Internet access price.

Following Google's launch of Google Fiber, and its $1 billion investment in SpaceX to support the creation of a huge fleet of low earth orbit satellites to provide Internet access, the move would highlight the increasingly porous boundaries between Internet ecosystem providers, with most of the move into adjacenies happening on the part of application providers.

That is characteristic of newly-competitive markets and also of mature markets, as contestants either move to secure adjacencies. Sometimes that is to enhance the core value of the core role, and sometimes is driven by a need to create new revenue streams that compensate for revenue losses in the core business. 

The boundaries between ecosystem participants tend to become more porous as competition increases. That is why app providers become access providers, or app proviers become device suppliers. In other cases, device suppliers become app providers. 

In other cases video content suppliers become voice and data providers, while voice and data providers become video entertainment suppliers. We sometimes forget that for the better part of two decades, Internet service providers have worried that firms such as Google, Facebook or Amazon might beome access service providers.

That fear already has proven justified. Google Voice, then Google Fiber, and now perhaps Google mobile are initiatives undertaken by Google to directly compete with former partners in the ecosystem, even if the partnerships are functional, and not strictly based on contractural relationships. 

Can Elon Musk Disrupt a Significan Part of the Global Bandwidth Business?

It has been quite some time since satellites carried a significant portion of global bandwidth. That role has been assumed by the networks of optical fiber cable circling the globe, instead.

But Elon Musk wants to shake that up in the same way he wants to shake up the auto business, satellite launch business, the Hyperloop transportation system and SolarCity, the retail solar power business.  

And make no mistake: although most of the potential impact and attention will be focused on the objective to delivering Internet access to billions of people, there are other potential disruptions for the capacity industry.

Almost lost in the reporting about the proposed new venture is the potential to challenge--as crazy as it might seem--the long haul business. In fact, Musk seems to be focusing on the possibility that, over the long term, satellite displaces much of the long haul bandwidth network business now based on undersea cables.

“The long-term potential is to be the primary means of long-distance Internet traffic and to serve people in sparsely populated areas,” said Musk.

That will strike some as fanciful. But this is Elon Musk. He seems to specialized in commercializing “fanciful” products.

It is a scientific fact that light travels as much as 40 percent faster through a vacuum than through an optical fiber. When that can be turned into a commercial fact (content and information with up to 40 percent less latency) is the question.

The newly-announced satellite Internet venture would feature hundreds to thousands of satellites in low earth orbit. Such LEO constellations have been proposed before (Iridium and Teledesic come to mind).

Some might be skeptical that the new venture will succeed at one of its potential business models, namely providing retail Internet access to billions of people globally. Iridium and Teledesic, other touted LEO satellite networks, did not get off the ground, or survive.

For some, the more intriguing question is where LEO satellite networks could grab a significant portion of global long haul traffic. That will strike many as fanciful. But this is Elon Musk, so the question merits more than a casual dismissal.

For starters, the satellite fleet will provide its own backhaul. And if the potential base of retail users is billions of people, that could be a substantial amount of capacity in its own right. The fleet presumably will be used both to beam signals to and from the ground stations, but also possibly between the satellites in orbit.

Among the questions that will be raised is how the new venture will get rights to use spectrum.

But LEO satellites are lighter, less expensive to launch and require less operating power than geostationary satellites typically used to provide services such as DirecTV and Dish Network, for example.

In addition, LEO systems can use from smaller and presumably less-expensive ground stations. All those attributes, plus lower latency, play a part in thinking that LEO satellite fleets can solve the problem of infrastructure for billions of people not within reach of Internet access networks.

Latency performance is a major advantage. Satellite latency makes use of applications such as Skype, online gaming, and other cloud-based services a bit of a challenge.

“Our focus is on creating a global communications system that would be larger than anything that has been talked about to date,” Musk said. That sounds like Elon Musk.

Google, Elon Musk Collaborate on New 4,000 Bird Satellite Fleet for Internet Access; Will Compete with new WorldVu Venture

Elon Musk will be part of a new battle between global satellite fleets intended to bring Internet access to underserved people around the globe. SpaceX, Musk’s satellite firm, just got $1 billion from Google to help build a new satellite fleet.

Just days ago, Musk talked about  a new project aimed at putting up to 4,000 satellites into low Earth orbit to provide low-cost Internet access. The satellite system could start providing data services by 2020, though the full constellation could be in place by 2030, possibly. The cost of the venture could amount to $10 billion or more, Musk said.

Separately, WorldVu Satellites Ltd. has raised funding from Virgin Group and Qualcomm for a proposed global satellite internet company focusing on potential users in developing countries that cannot be reached by fixed or mobile networks, as well as to supply Internet access to flying aircraft.

The proposed network will cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion, backers believe.

WorldVu Satellites founder Greg Wyler said. Wyler, formerly of satellite firm O3b, has been touting this idea for some time.

Virgin Group and Qualcomm are investors in the WorldVu “OneWeb Ltd.” service, which hopes to launch a constellation of 648 satellites. Investor Richard Branson thinks the total could eventually be higher than that. Branson also says voice service will be part of the core service.

Virgin is a sprawling conglomerate that now wants to build a new global satellite fleet to deliver Internet services to users who today do not have access by any other means.

Some might note that others have tried in the past, without much success, to create such networks, and few have tried to reach billions of people who today cannot afford to connect to the Internet.

But Virgin believes it has other assets that will help achieve OneWeb attain the goal of service at far lower costs.

Virgin Galactic’s “LauncherOne” program will be used to make frequent satellite launches at lower cost. Other launch partners. might be added, the press release announcing the venture hints.

Branson suggested that Virgin Galactic will be launching most of the OneWeb spacecraft, but not all of them.

“We have the biggest order ever for putting satellites into space,” Branson said. “By the time our second constellation is developed, the company will have launched more satellites than there currently are in the sky.”

The first launches are supposed to happen in early 2017. OneWeb controls a block of radio spectrum that it will use for the Internet service, but has to begin deploying the network to retain use of the frequencies, a typical requirement for spectrum grantees.

OneWeb’s satellites will weigh about 285 pounds and operate in a low-earth orbit about 750 miles above the planet’s surface. That has significant positive implications for potential bandwidth and latency performance, allowing much-lower latency than possible for geosynchronous satellites.

The deployment challenges will be significant for such a large fleet, but backers hope lower satellite and launch costs will help the venture provide consumer Internet access at far-lower prices than possible in the past.

Should both fleets be built and create sustainable business models, the task of getting billions of people Internet access for the first time will become a reality. That has implications for other existing satellite providers, as well as for mobile service providers providing Internet access.

How Big Will Healthcare M2M Be in 2020?

Internet of Things and machine-to-machine applications in the healthcare market are

“developing slowly, with regulatory constraints a frequent obstacle, especially in the US market,” said John Byrne, directing analyst for M2M and IoT at Infonetics Research.

Global M2M connected healthcare service revenue was $533 million in 2013, and is projected to reach $2.4 billion by 2018. Revenue grew 15 percent from 2012 to 2013.

Connections grew 23 percent in 2013 from 2012, to 44 million.

Infonetics predicts the connected health M2M segment will represent revenue of $2.4 billion by 2018, a 2013 to 2018 compound annual growth rate of 36 percent, but from a small base.

Some forecasts of mobile healthcare forecasts that might include M2M among other sensors, wearables and mobile health services might represent $59 billion in revenue by 2020.

A few think the market could reach $91 billion by about 2023. The point is that the numbers, depending on how one defines the market, can be almost arbitrarily large. In the early going the conservative forecasts are more likely to be correct.

Operational efficiency and lower operating costs are the primary adoption drivers for connected health M2M, Byrne says.

“In our view, an even more substantial issue is that healthcare providers and other participants in this market are reluctant to make significant investments in M2M solutions until they can clearly see the benefit, and this takes time,” said Byrne.

“Operators lack the personnel to deepen relationships with healthcare customers; they need to find partners that have strong ties in the healthcare community to accelerate growth,” Byrne said.

Though many would hope for faster progress, it is refreshing to see a realistic appraisal of market prospects, even if many are hopeful of faster development in the near term.