"Back to the Future" for FreedomPop "Premium Voice"

It is back to the future for FreedomPop, which has introduced a “better calling experience”

called “Premium Voice technology.” So is it a fancy new Internet Protocol tweak? No, the service uses a second generation network, much as 4G networks often rely on 3G for voice services.

That sort of thing--finding a new use for stranded assets, or encouraging customers to use resources off peak--happens often in the telecommunications business.

One reason some mobile service providers, such as Sprint and T-Mobile US, are so supportive of allowing customers to make free voice calls, send free text messages and use mobile Internet access on Wi-Fi is that doing so frees up mobile network bandwidth, even if it risks sacrificing some revenue.

One reason telephone companies used to feature highly-discounted calling during the evenings and on weekends was that the network was lightly loaded at those times.

On the other hand, FreedomPop also has been among the leaders in the mobile space at combining Wi-Fi and mobile network access, a feature likely to be fundamental by the time fifth generation networks are commercialized.

The Premium Voice capability essentially involves sensing when the IP connection is unstable, and switches a call over to Sprint’s 2G network.

Some believe 5G will be built as an extension to 4G, while others think the break might be more discontinuous. If we are less than 10 years away from launch, either pattern could occur.

But some might argue all the fundamental building blocks (extremely low latency, extremely high bandwidth, ability to use any network, software defined networks, network functions virtualization, big data capabilities, small cell technology, better antennas, exploitation of new millimeter wave frequencies and so forth already are clearly coming.

And then there is the other possibility we usually do not consider, as in the case of putting old legacy networks to new users, or monetizing otherwise stranded assets.

Does Amazon Prime Have to Catch Netflix?

Google was the first, and so far perhaps the most successful software company to build a big business using an advertising revenue model. But content has played a significant role for Apple, which uses content to create value for its device sales, and Amazon, which uses content as a value driver for its subscription shipping program, Amazon Prime.

So while it is useful to note how well those, and other providers, will be in the coming subscription streaming business (market share or revenue, for example), “success” will be a more nuanced issue.

Consider a finding that Amazon Prime subscribers in the United States are more likely to use Netflix than Prime Instant Video, according to Strategy Analytics.

About 63 percent of Amazon Prime subscribers used Netflix in the previous month compared to 59 percent who used Prime Instant Video. In other words, slightly more Amazon Prime customers used Netflix streaming video more than the Amazon Prime service.

So is that a problem, or not? “Amazon is needlessly ‘losing’ users to Netflix when, in fact, it should be eating into their user base,” says Leika Kawasaki, Strategy Analytics digital media analyst.

On the other hand, says Kawasaki, Amazon is taking “significant steps” to boost value.

Still, “in contrast to countries such as the UK and Germany, Americans are more likely to subscribe to Amazon Prime for free two-day shipping than for Prime Instant Video,” said Kawasaki.

So whether Amazon Prime needs to best Netflix in narrow terms (which firm has more customers, or which firm makes the most money) might not be the most significant issue.

Amazon Prime streaming might be viewed somewhat as Apple views its own content services: as a means to an end. For Apple, content helps it sell more devices. For Amazon, content is both a product and a way to sell more products.

Some consumers probably view Amazon Prime as a value added feature of a two-day free shipping “product,” and not as a stand-alone streaming service.

Given the disparity in catalog, it is hard to see why a rational consumer would directly compared Amazon Prime and Netflix strictly as sources of content. Netflix wins. Period.

On the other hand, Amazon Prime is a vehicle to upsell more video content, as well as a value to boost its free shipping program.

In that view, Amazon Prime does not have to be too close to Netflix, in terms of viewers or direct revenue.

Nor does it necessarily matter that more people with Amazon Prime subscriptions watch Netflix.

They might be heavier video consumers than average. They might rationally recognize that the Netflix catalog is more varied. And, in most cases, they might simply view Amazon Prime as a value add for a shipping service, not a full competitor to Netflix.

Is Distribution or Content Still King? It's Changing, Again

There is a very old debate in the video entertainment industry about whether ecosystem power is held by distributors or owners of content.

A perhaps interesting illustration of how the power could shift is illustrated by current negotiations between Apple and Disney about content rights. Disney owns ESPN, for example, considered an anchor for a streaming video service.

Disney’s negotiating is familiar. Disney wants Apple to carry more Disney channels in exchange for a carriage agreement. That is what typically happens in any negotiating session between major networks and distributors.

In this case, it remains unclear whether Apple, as a distributor, or Disney, as a content supplier, has the stronger hand. Both are powers in their own right, within the broader Internet ecosystem.

Perhaps the situation of the channels that will not be asked to be part of a new streaming service (featuring perhaps 25 channels is instructive) illustrates the changing nature of the equation.

Though I generally argue that “content is king,” at least in recent years, in past times I have argued that “distribution was king.” But that was a time when cable TV operators--only one in each market--were the sole distribution agents.

As satellite TV came on the scene, preceded by smaller hotel and satellite master antenna TV operators, as well as mostly unsuccessful MMDS operators, the number of important distributors grew. Most recently, cable TV operators, Google Fiber and now the streaming services have added to the number of distributors.

That arguably has titled power back to the content owners.

But the Disney-Apple and Sling TV services offer a way of revising  the nature of the argument. Perhaps the generally-unused adjective “important,” used to modify “channel” or “network,” is the new key.

In a world where either a la carte or skinny bundles gain share and importance, it is the small, niche channels that lose power. They won’t be included in the 20-channel or 30-channel bundles. So they lose bargaining power because the distributors do not want to carry them.

The anchor services such as ESPN will continue to hold considerable power, as they are the “must have” channels. All the smaller channels will lose value.

So “important content” is king. Not all content will continue to have the same status as in the past. And, for some time, the power of distributors is going to grow, as new streaming sevices struggle to break free and assume dominance of the distribution business.

So it isn’t going to be easy to say that “content” or “distribution” clearly is king.

Sprint Wi-Fi Calling Illustrates Dramatic Change in Voice Value

Perhaps nothing illustrates the extraordinary shift in the value of voice services for service providers than the announcement that Sprint iPhone customers now can make high-quality calls over Wi-Fi networks, while using their own phone number.

In part, Sprint pitches the feature as a way to extend coverage, especially indoors.  

“Wi-Fi Calling is like a major expansion of our network, allowing Sprint customers to get coverage anywhere they have Wi-Fi connectivity,” said David Owens, senior vice president of product development for Sprint. “Traditional wireless technology has some limitations in places like basements and high-rise office buildings.

Such calls do not count against subscriber data usage buckets or voice allotments. In other words, Sprint is enabling customers to use their mobiles to make calls for no additional cost and without using any of their paid-for data or voice calling capabilities. In essence, Sprint now gives away what it used to sell.

There are indirect benefits, even if voice communications is more a feature than a revenue stream. Consumers will be happier because their signal coverage is better. They also will essentially be offloading some amount of voice traffic from the mobile network.

The virtual effect is to improve Sprint’s network coverage at no cost. So losing potential voice or Internet access revenue is balanced by better user experience and mobile network load.

Customers traveling internationally with Wi-Fi access also can use Wi-Fi calling to enjoy free calls from over 200 countries back to the United States.

Wi-Fi Calling also is available at no additional charge when calling to a U.S., U.S. Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico phone number.

What Mobile Niche is Left for New LightSquared to Conquer?

Charlie Ergen appears to be right when he quips about bandwidth being valuable because they aren't making any more of it. Ergen personally was paid about $1.5 billion to relinquish his claims on LightSquared, because of debt he owned in the company.

Now LightSquared asked the FCC to transfer spectrum licenses to the entity to be known as New LightSquared, allowing a new company to try and build a successful business.

But New LightSquared still needs to figure out what lucrative new niche remains unfilled, and try and fill that spot in the ecosystem before a combination of mobile operators, satellite operators, cable TV companies and Wi-Fi-based service providers essentially fill all those unmet needs.

The original business plan was to "re-purpose" satellite frequencies to support terrestrial mobile operations. That plan came undone when claims of signal interference with GPS devices was raised, successfully, an an objection.

It remains unclear whether the new company will try some other form of terrestrial service, without using the GPS-infringing frequencies, or revert back to its old business plans for mobile satellite service.

Ivan Seidenberg, a former chairman of Verizon Communications Inc., and Reed Hundt, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman, have joined the board of New LightSquared, so we might find out whether it is possible to create a successful business out of LightSquared spectrum.

Is there yet a viable niche for a mobile communications service, at a time when terrestrial mobile networks so dominate most communications and new services substantially or completely dependent on Wi-Fi are operating.

There are specialized Long Term Evolution and other networks that specialize in supporting trucking, oil industry and other vertical niches, for example, though some think New LightSquared will go with some sort of niche, vertical market strategy.

Will Mobile be a Full Substitute for Fixed Internet Access in 10 Years?

As crazy as it might seem today, standard mobile networks might in a decade be full substitutes for fixed network access, in terms of delivered commercial bandwidth. If the assumption is that fixed networks might deliver bandwidth up to 1 Gbps or 2 Gbps, then it might be quite instructive to note that suppliers are working to commercialize small cell access systems delivering bandwidth between 2 Gbps and 10 Gbps.

The point is that If you have access to enough spectrum, at high-enough frequencies, plus sophisticated antenna technology, and only need to transmit at close distances, extraordinary bandwidth--fully matching fixed network bandwidth--is possible.

Nokia Networks has shown the ability to transmit mobile signals at 10Gbps peak rates over the air at 73 GHz using Nokia mmWave gear at the Brooklyn 5G Summit, jointly organized by Nokia Networks and NYU.  

NTT Docomo and Nokia Networks earlier had shown the ability to transmit at 2 Gbps rates in the 70 GHZ band, using Nokia Networks mmWave technology, in an indoor setting.

“Utilizing higher frequency bands including millimeter wave  is key to deliver extremely high performance in 5G,” said Seizo Onoe, NTT DOCOMO CTO. “We believe that high-frequency spectrum shall be used not just for small cells as a means to complement the existing network, but also for building solid area coverage through coordination with existing lower frequency bands.”

IoT, Big Data, Cloud Computing are One Trend Pointing to Next Era of Computing

It increasingly is going to be hard to separate the Internet of Things from cloud computing from big data, since the value of all those sensors and apps will be the ability to pluck trends and meaning from a bewildering amount of raw sensor data.

Think about Waze, the social driving app that crowd sources the observations of drivers about traffic, for example.

The sensors now are smartphones, but the value is the insight about traffic slowdowns and jams. That requires use of sensors (smartphones as the “things,” in this case), the global positioning satellite system, the Waze and Google Maps apps, the cloud computing infrastructure and the ability to process tons of data in real time.

If you wanted to start looking for leaders in the next era of computing, you would do much worse than to look for firms that will dominate the horizontal roles in IoT-centric computing.