Why Cable TV Operators Might Dominate High Speed Access

Comcast’s plan to offer 2 Gbps symmetrical Internet access to perhaps 18 million homes out of 21 million illustrates a relevant business principle. One often hears it said that something “cannot be done.”

The phrase has to be understood in context. It actually means a particular provider, with a particular cost structure and business model, cannot do something. A given retailer might not be able to compete with Amazon, in some product lines. A given airline might not be able to compete with another airline at a specific airport location.

But it is not true that what one firm cannot do means that all other firms are similarly unable to do so.

In fact, some have argued, for some time, that U.S. cable TV companies eventually would emerge as the dominant fixed line suppliers of communication services for consumers, as telcos--with higher fixed and operating costs--simply could not compete.

In many ways, that already has happened: telcos no longer are dominant providers of fixed network services for consumers.

At the end of 2012, incumbent local exchange carriers (telcos) had 34 percent share of the consumer voice market, 14 percent of the high speed access market and 10 percent of the video subscription market.

In fact, some might argue that cable TV operators are destined to dominate consumer high speed access. Others might argue a long-term duopoly, nationally, will exist, with Comcast and AT&T having dominant market share in different markets.

Some might argue that AT&T and Verizon have cost structure issues that will continue to hamper their fixed network operations. That is one good reason why effort and investment have shifted to mobile operations.

Telcos might not be able to match Comcast’s 2 Gbps high speed access offer easily, as they will find 1 Gbps challenging on a sustainable basis. The issue is the business model, not the technology. In competitive markets, the low-cost provider tends to win Telcos are almost never the low-cost providers.

There are obvious regulatory and business implications, almost certain to be jarring and unpleasant. 

There will come a time when it makes no sense to put handcuffs on formerly dominant telcos. There will come a time when telco cost structures will have to be slashed even more than at present.

Telco fixed network investment returns will be difficult to impossible to obtain.

TV Inflection Point Might be "A Few Years" Away, says Moody's

Cable TV companies do not face immediate revenue threats from over the top video alternatives “for the next few years,” according to Moody’s Investor Service.

Perhaps the key phrase is “for the next few years.” At some point, a transition to OTT streaming services is going to hit an inflection point, the rate of change will go non-linear, and the business will change rather quickly.

So far, the changes have been gradual. In 2014, cable suppliers lost about 1.2 million accounts, while AT&T and Verizon picked up about a million accounts. Satellite suppliers gained about 20,000 accounts. So there was a net shrinkage of about 126,000 accounts, on a base of 95.2 million.

The decline of cable accounts has been underway since 2012, the Federal Communications Commission reports.

On the other hand, late in 2013, for example, U.S. cable TV operator high speed Internet access accounts surpassed video accounts for the first time. That does not necessarily speak to the health of the video subscription business, though, as cable losses were to the benefit of telco suppliers.

A change in adoption from rather slow and linear to exponential tends to happen for adoption of most important new technologies, however. There is a longish period where it seems not too much change is happening, but then an inflection point where adoption rapidly increases.

A firm that misses the transition quite frequently begins a period of irreversible decline. On the other hand, such inflection points are common in the communications business.

Until the early 1990s, few people actually used mobile phones. But mobiles suddenly became the primary way people globally make phone calls and arguably also have become the way most people get access to the Internet.

The inflection point everywhere in the developing world seems to have happened between 2002 and 2003.

In 2000, one might still have looked at tele-density figures for Africa and south Asia and still have concluded that not much was happening, in terms of adoption. But that changed, sometime around 2004, when a growth inflection point was reached, both in terms of income and use of mobile phones.

That has direct implications for Internet access as well. Over time, the volume of smart phones, compared to feature phones, will shift dramatically in the direction of smart phones. And that will rapidly change the usage of Internet apps.

Statistics showing wide disparities in use of the Internet around the world are snapshots in time. What is equally important is the pace of change. One might have argued, based on statistics from 1990 or 2000, that many in developing regions developing regions still were not able to use phones and computers or get access to the Internet.

But an inflection point occurred in India around 2004.

One might wonder how close we now are to such an inflection point in the video entertainment business, as some studies suggest an uptick in customer churn, in a business that generally has been seeing smaller churn rates for a decade or more.

Moody's analysts said that the strength of the high speed access business, limited competition, and customer inertia would give cable operators time to adapt to the rise of new entrants to the sector.

"OTT options will take a small number of traditional pay TV subscribers, but the shift in the pay TV sector will be evolutionary, not revolutionary," said Moody's Vice President Karen Berckmann.

One advantage for distributors is that content owners are not pushing too hard for change. "Content providers are treading cautiously so traditional cable operators now have the chance to build financial flexibility and prepare in case industry fundamentals change more significantly."

Some would argue from history that is likely to happen. Change will be incremental until the inflection point is reached. Then change goes non-linear and exponential.

The danger is that an incumbent has not prepared in advance for the rapidity of the eventual shift. The greater threat is that the incumbent simply does not possess the desire and skills to make the transition.

When Consumers Shop by Price, Headline Prices Will be Misleading

It arguably never has been terribly easy for a typical consumer to read and understand a telephone bill.  

As Verizon’s explanation of taxes, fees, surcharges, and other charges makes clear, it still is tough.

And without condoning the placement of operating charges “below the line,” allowing a lower headline price to be advertised, the practice probably is not unusual in any highly-competitive industry, where people shop “by price,” and when pricing is easily available online.

Shopped for an airline ticket recently? You know what I mean. Try reading your triple play provider’s bill, especially if you are a new customer that just signed up. Try and figure out whether everything fits with your understanding of what it was you decided to buy. It might be quite hard to figure out.

For those of you with family mobile service plans, who have shifted from device subsidies to installment plans, it is possible “headline prices” for recurring service are quite attractive, compared to your former bills.

As consumers, we tend to like that. But after building in installment fees for new devices, the differences will still be visible, but the savings might not match your expectations.

Still, that’s the point. Consumers have gotten used to getting “lower prices” when shopping for any number of items and products. So what is any competitor going to do if a significant competitor starts advertising prices that appear to be lower?

A rational competitor is going to match the prices, and might use the same tactics as the firm that moved first.

That isn’t to condone practices that essentially hide costs, at least until a consumer gets further into the buying process. But highly-competitive markets, where “lower price” is a key consumer desire, are susceptible to practices aimed at producing lower “headline prices.”

That’s why there are baggage fees, seat reservation charges, meal or drink fees, video entertainment or Wi-Fi access costs that are supplemental to a quoted airfare.

Suppliers are competing in markets where consumers look early for price, after ascertaining that a certain product meets buyer criteria.

If no key competitors adopt a particular practice, others will not have to do so. But once the attack has started, responses are required.

In an era of price transparency, price really matters. And that’s why pricing “add ons” is so attractive to suppliers. It allows them to stay competitive with market-level headline pricing.

Few buyers likely think that is a good outcome. But that is what happens when headline prices are highly transparent.

Comcast to Ditch HFC for FTTH for 2 Gbps

Comcast's 2-Gbps Internet access offer, to be introduced in Atlanta and then other locations, is a watershed moment for the U.S. cable TV industry.

It appears that Comcast will use a fiber-to-the-home architecture to provide the service, ditching the hybrid fiber coax network for the first time in a mass consumer application.

That doesn't mean Comcast is abandoning HFC for most of its customers, at most locations. Much hinges on the price, and how many consumers are willing to pay what it will take to get the 2-Gbps service.  One suspects that is a rather low number. 

The new service will require replacing HFC connections with all-fiber access, and Comcast, as well as other cable TV operators, will resist "rip and replace" to the greatest extent possible. 

So, in a sense, Comcast might reasonably expect that a relatively small percentage of consumers actually will opt for the service, which will require overlaying new optical fiber drops from existing optical nodes. 

But it is a watershed moment, as Comcast would, for the first time, use FTTH as its consumer access network, at least for some customers, at some locations. 

Comcast has suggested it will  potentially reach 18 million of some 21 million homes, as 18 million Comcast consumers live within a third of a mile of an optical node. 

Comcast Rolling Out 2-Gbps Symmetrical Internet Access for Consumers in May 2015

Comcast in May 2015 will introduce Gigabit Pro, a new 2-Gbps symmetrical residential Internet access service in  Atlanta, with an expected introduction in additional Comast markets nationwide.

Comcast currently expects the service to be available to about 18 million homes by the end of 2015.

The new speeds are made possible by the DOCSIS 3.1 standard. To give you some idea of the bandwidth required, DOCSIS 3.1 requires availability of two 196-MHz downstream channels (392 MHz total bandwidth downstream) and two 96-MHz upstream channels (total 192 MHz).

Though it seems almost laughable that fixed network bandwidth could grow at rates close to that of Moore’s Law, that seems undeniably to be happening.

That service is not likely to be purchased by many consumers. The Comcast 500-Mbps service now costs about $400 a month, so there is no telling what the price for 2-Gbps might be.

The larger point is that, based simply on historical precedent, widely-available gigabit speeds (which is likely going to be different than the speeds most consumer choose to buy) should be available in the U.S. market by about 2016.

source: CableLabs estimate

BT Outlines Strategic Imperatives: Most Service Providers Face Similar Challenges

BT’s prospectus related to its acquisition of EE assets contains the expected statement of risks.  

The document warns that BT operates in an industry featuring “high levels of change; strong and new competition; declining prices and, in some markets, declining revenues; technology substitution; market and product convergence; customer churn; and regulatory intervention

to promote competition and reduce wholesale prices.”

Those who have read such documents will not read too much into such clauses. A reasonable person might quip that if a company really believed such risks were likely, and that the firm could not cope, that firm would not attempt the acquisition.

On the other hand, it is hard to dispute the general thesis that BT and EE operate in a tough, challenging and possibly worsening business.  

Revenue growth, even in the fast-growing mobile business, has slowed dramatically. Global mobile service revenue in the first half of 2014 grew  just 0.5 percent, compared to the same quarter of 2013, to $385.5 billion, according to Infonetics Research.

“Increased competition has led to a decline in the prices which EE charges for its mobile services and is expected to lead to further declines in pricing in the future,” the document notes.

In addition, BT warns that the rate of adding net new customers could shrink, churn could increase, revenue and market share could fall.

BT obviously believes it can deal with the challenges. But the statement of challenges neatly summarizes industry challenges that mostly are occurring on a global scale. If the global telecom business continues to grow--and many believe it soon will cease to do so--it will not be easy.

We can disagree about how much new revenue some communications service providers will have to create over a decade’s time, to replace lost legacy revenues.

One working hypothesis is that service providers in developed markets, in particular, will have to replace about half of current revenue over about a decade. That prediction is based on past experience, where the leading revenue category--long distance voice--experienced precisely that rate of decay.

Then many service providers found they had to replace lost voice revenues with high speed Internet access, mobility and video entertainment revenues. Many expect the rate of replacement will ultimately work out to a loss of half of voice revenue over 10 years, and its replacement by other sources.

If global telecom revenue is about $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion, and assuming about half the revenue is earned in mature markets, then the revenue subject to disruption ranges from $800 billion to $1 trillion.

Half of that represents $400 billion to $500 billion. That, hypothetically, is the potential amount of global revenue that might be lost, and would have to be replaced.

So BT’s prospectus, though containing much required legalese, still captures the magnitude of coming changes, and the seriousness of the response.

How Fast will IoT, M2M Commercial Use Cases Develop?

Timing of investment always is tricky when a brand-new industry segment or product is being introduced. But the pace at which demand develops also is an issue.

One might point to the mismatch between investment in low earth orbit satellite constellations and market demand; the investment in application service provider businesses that faltered when demand proved insufficient to support most of the new entities.

In the mobile business, early investments in third generation mobile spectrum came at too high a price to allow immediate recovery of the capital investment.

Those dangers will exist for firms such as Bouygues Telecom, which is building a dedicated LoRa (long range) network to support Internet of Things (IoT) and M2M network offerings. Bouygues expects to operate in 500 towns and cities by the end of 2015.

Bouygues Telecom, working with Semtech, Sagemcom, Eolane, Adeunis and Kerlink, has been testing LoRa with “several major industrial customers.”

Bouygues is not the only European mobile operator investing in LoRa capabilities. Fastnet and KPN already have done so, while Belgacom and Swisscom also are preparing to introduce LoRa infrastructure.

All of that activity aims to create the network access capabilities to support M2M and IoT applications requiring long battery life and low bandwidth, bursty communications. The low-power wide-area (LPWA) technology is designed to support devices operating 10 years, using standard batteries, before requiring a battery swap.

How fast such markets will develop is the unknown. LoRa supporters argue the platform can support smart parking, building surveillance, sound monitoring, people detection, traffic management, street lighting management, domestic waste management or billboard displays.

Fire detection, air pollution, snowfall measurement, avalanche prevention, flood and drought monitoring or earthquake detection systems might also benefit.

Monitoring of water supplies, chemical contamination detection, swimming pool monitoring, seawater pollution measurement, leak detection and tide monitoring also are other applications.

Up to this point, smart electricity/water/gas meters have provided much of the early commercial deployment.

Tracking of vehicles, bicycles, objects of value, animals or people also are feasible apps, as are safety and rescue services.

But many commercial applications are expected in the industrial areas of the econmy, such as for supply chain control, mobile payments, smart shopping or shelf stock rotation.

Logistics and industrial or agricultural monitoring provide many potential examples.

Many see eHealth apps as well.

The trick will be matching investment to expected development of commercial apps requiring use of the network in volume. It always is tricky.