Turning Points are Hard to See, But We Might be Nearing One

It once would have been impossible to imagine the computing business without IBM at the top, during the mainframe era. It would have been inconceivable to imagine the minicomputer era without Digital Equipment Corp. at the apex.

Likewise, an industry not lead by Microsoft and Intel during the personal computer era would once have been nearly unthinkable. 

But computing eras change. And while nobody quite knows what to call the coming period--mobile, pervasive, cloud or something else--most believe a new era is arriving. 

If history proves instructive, new leaders are going to emerge. That means names such as Google, Apple, Facebook or Amazon might not be among the industry leaders. 

Such turning points, though, always have happened before. Every era has been lead by different firms. 

To be sure, there is always a chance that the pattern will be broken. 

Apple doesn't quite fit the pattern, but some will argue Apple never lead the personal computing era. 

Still, as impossible as it is to envision a computing era not lead by names such as Google, Facebook, Apple or Amazon, the odds favor new names emerging. 

Architectures and processors always have mattered in the past, so many will look there for new names. But some things really  have changed. 

Google was the first technology leader whose business model was based on advertising. That never has happened before. Based on that precedent-breaking development, one might suggest other business models could be part of the next era. 

Not Enough Competition? Abundance Will Be the Big "Problem" after 2020

While network neutrality is seen by some as protecting Internet “openness,” it does not address the underlying core problem of scarcity, according to Milo Medin, Google Fiber VP. Whether you agree with Medin or not, about openness, you might also agree with him that the decision does not specifically address or promote competition.

It might be true that "no consumers are seeing higher speeds than before the order was passed; no consumers are paying less for their Internet services than what they were paying for; no consumers are seeing higher volume caps that they had before; and no consumers have additional choice of providers than they had before," Medin noted.

All true, as far as it goes, but almost hugely misleading and arguably strategically mistaken. As much of a force as Google Fiber has been at spurring other Internet service providers to invest dramatically faster, Comcast’s recent moves to upgrade  all customer locations to gigabit speeds by the end of 2015, and 2 Gbps for 86 percent of all locations--also by the end of 2015--must be said to dwarf all the other efforts put together.

In fact, some of us now would argue that abundance soon will be the reality for most consumers, sometime after 2020.

Will FCC Allow Massive Merger to Protect Net Neutrality Gains?

Publication of the new Federal Communications Commission mandated network neutrality rules opens the way for court challenges, and the first lawsuit has been filed.

There are many potential ironies. Consider the present situation the FCC faces with respect to the Comcast acquisition of Time Warner Cable. On one hand, since Comcast is upgrading 21 million--virtually all--of its residential locations to gigabit levels of service, plus offering 2 Gbps to 18 million of its customers, Comcast already is the biggest Internet service provider in the United States, with the most gigabit-capable networks.

Adding Time Warner Cable would allow Comcast to extend that lead. Even before that announcement, and before changing the definition of broadband, Comcast arguably is the largest U.S. Internet service provider, and arguably the provider with the greatest share of faster-speed connections.

By about 2007, average advertised cable TV high speed access speeds were 2.5 times the average telco digital subscriber line speeds, while cable peak speeds were three times faster.

The gap since has widened, principally because Comcast is upgrading all its locations to gigabit speeds by the end of 2015, and because more cable operators will be adopting DOCSIS 3.1, which will enable gigabit speeds.

To be sure, many ISPs, including AT&T and CenturyLink, many independent ISPs and Google Fiber, are upgrading to gigabit speeds as well. But those roll-outs are coming neighborhood by neighborhood, and at a measured pace. All will be playing catchup to Comcast.

In other words, Comcast’s share of the gigabit access market will be very high, given its installed base of potential connections (21 million homes), where the other contestants would be lucky to be able to market to hundreds of thousands of homes.

In recent years, cable TV companies also have been getting 83 percent share of net new high speed access connections.  

So if the FCC approves the merger, it will sanction unusually high levels of concentration by one service provider, arguably in the most-crucial product segment of all.

Under normal circumstances, one would be skeptical.

But there is another twist. If the FCC does approve the merger, it could likely win network neutrality agreements from Comcast that would stand, even if the FCC’s network neutrality rules later were struck down.

And some believe the rules will be invalidated. “The FCC may have violated the Constitution’s separation of powers in its attempt to ‘modernize’ the 1934 Communications Act.

By reclassifying broadband as a telecom service and then selectively and arbitrarily forbearing from most of Title II, the agency has effectively rewritten the Act — something only Congress can do through legislation,” said Berin Szoka, President of TechFreedom.

There also will be procedural objections. “The agency failed to open a new comment round after scrapping its initial, more modest proposal, in favor of the President’s Title II plan,” said Szoka.

So might the FCC try to protect some net neutrality gains by sanctioning a merger that will violate most of the market share rules the FCC and Dept. of Justice normally apply when screening and evaluating mergers at the top of telecom markets?

Access Platform Decisions Still are Controversial

Debates about when, how or why to deploy fiber to the home have been relevant for decades. Among the bigger juxtapositions: fiber to the home versus fiber to the curb or fiber to the neighborhood; FTTH versus hybrid fiber coax; and more recently, the value of fixed versus mobile investments.

Those debates were relevant because payback is relevant, and it has been no secret that the FTTH business model has been difficult, especially in competitive markets, and particularly so in markets where there are rival facilities-based competitors.

By about 2020, the challenges will grow worse, as fifth generation mobile networks promise end user bandwidth up to 10 Gbps, with one millisecond latency.

In Vietnam, where perhaps only 1.5 percent of locations have access to FTTH, the Fiber to the Home Council Asia-Pacific has urged service providers to invest heavily.

In addition to retail broadband services, telcos could profit from backhaul bandwidth and connectivity for mobile operators, especially those venturing into Long Term Evolution, said Dr. Bernard Lee, FTTH Council Asia Pacific president.

Some might say it is a bit of over-investment to build a ubiquitous residential network only so that network can be used for mobile backhaul.

With so much changing in the access business, statistics alone will not drive business investment decisions.

When more access, at higher speed, is required, service providers will look at all the ways platforms can be deployed, the cost, timetable and also revenue implications of doing so.

In most markets, ubiquitous fiber to home might not be the wise choice. Mobile operators have joined cable TV operators in making that argument. And Verizon seems now almost to regret having made that choice.

What Will ISPS Do When They Cannot Upgrade to a Gigabit?

Though it isn’t yet clear how Internet service providers are going to compete against competitors able to offer much faster speeds, we are going to get more evidence as Time Warner Cable in the Charlotte area are upgraded, in large part to counter Google Fiber and AT&T gigabit access services.

“TWC Maxx” will feature speed boosts as much as six times over current levels, for no increase in price.

Customers who subscribe to “standard” service (up to 15 Mbps) be boosted to speeds as high as 50 Mbps.

“Extreme” customers buying high speed access at speeds “up to 30 Mbps” will be boosted to , “up to 200 Mbps.”

“Ultimate” customers, with access to speeds “up to 50 Mbps” will get speeds “up to 300 Mbps.”

Time Warner Cable also is upgrading its digital video recorder features, allowing customers to simultaneously record up to six different programs, and the ability to save 150 hours of high-definition (HD) programming on its 1TB (terabyte) hard drive, which is twice the storage of the largest prior model.

Customers will also have access to an all-digital lineup and an expanded On Demand library that has reached 19,000 titles, growing to more than 30,000 by the end of the year.

So you can see some elements of a possible strategy, when an ISP cannot afford to upgrade all the way to match the headline offers from Google Fiber and another ISP. Speed will be upgraded, often at no extra charge, to close the gap in practical terms, even if it remains impossible to match headline speeds.

Then other key elements of the bundle experience also are upgraded

Something similar will have to be considered as the number of ISPs offering much-faster speeds continues to grow. A number of contestants, such as fixed wireless providers, satellite providers and some small telcos, simply will not be able to match gigabit speeds.

In many cases, even large telcos will not desire to do so, and the financial return is deemed too small, or even negative.

Increasingly, we are going to find out just what it takes for many ISPs to compete against other ISPs offering gigabit speeds, when that offer cannot be matched.

All be watching to see how successful such efforts might be. After all, the actual end user benefit can be obtained at speeds far below gigabit or even hundreds of megabit speeds. In fact, at the moment, user experience, on a single user or per-user basis, beyond 10 Mbps to 15 Mbps, is negligible to non-existent.  

Will the Fixed Network Be Relevant, and if so, How, by 2030?

There are a few questions which might engage many observers of the telecom business.

The first: will cable TV companies emerge as the dominant suppliers of fixed network services? In the U.S. market, for example, cable companies have the dominant market share in both video entertainment and high speed access, with a substantial position in voice services.

The second question: will “dominance” mean much, if and when mobile networks are able to match fixed networks for features and functionality, such as headline speed?

A third question is whether higher cost telcos will continue to invest aggressively in their fixed networks if financial returns are better in mobile and international arenas, especially if no amount of investment allows them to “catch” cable operators?

Some insight on the answer to the first question has been provided by Comcast, which is upgrading all 21 million customer locations to gigabit access speeds by the end of 2015. Comcast also plans to make 2 Gbps service available to 18 million customer locations as well, by the end of 2015.

In fact, some have argued 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.

The second question might be more meaningful sometime after 2020, when fifth generation mobile networks are commercialized. If performance matches present plans, end user bandwidth will be as high as 10 Gbps and latency as low as one millisecond.

At that point, it might reasonably be argued that the mobile network is superior to fixed for nearly any imaginable application. To be sure, prices, terms and conditions of service will matter greatly.

But, for the first time, it might be reasonable to say the mobile network actually outperforms the fixed network.

The third question also is germane. It seems unlikely most telcos will be able to match the speeds, the deployment timetable or investment cost, not when better returns are available in mobile and internationally.

Under such conditions, would a rational strategy not entail harvesting the fixed network, while putting most new investment elsewhere?

Consider what has happened in the voice business, even the mobile segment. Mobile has displaced the fixed network as the way most people want to use voice services. Some consumers are starting to do so for Internet access, already.

About seven percent of U.S. residents own a smartphone but do not buy fixed network high speed access service at home, and therefore rely on their smartphones for access. That data point provides some evidence about consumer ability to substitute mobile access for fixed Internet access.

About 15 percent report they have a limited number of ways to get access to the Internet aside from using their phones, according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center.

Today nearly 66 percent of U.S. residents own a smartphone and 19 percent rely to some degree on a smartphone for online access.

It could get worse for service providers.

Separately, a U.K. survey found that 33 percent of mobile phone users claim they do not use voice at all.

“Voice” or “making phone calls” were not on a list of the top 10 most-used mobile phone features in a recent poll of 1,000 people in the United Kingdom, conducted by Oxygen8.

Granted, the online poll appears not based on a randomizing process, so likely is not representative of the “typical” user, but the results are a surprise, nonetheless.

The point is that very big questions loom for fixed network service providers. It isn’t clear that the telco role is stable. It isn’t so clear that telcos “ought” to invest in fixed networks, when other alternatives, especially those where they might challenge other fixed networks, are feasible.

Could Cable Use LTE-LAA to Create Its Own Mobile Network?

If new protocols will allow Long Term Evolution networks to run over unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum, using licensed assisted access, there is no reason to believe that same technique could not be used by a cable operator with a huge footprint of public Wi-Fi hotspots. 



Comcast is the foremost example of a firm that could leverage LTE-LAA to run most of its access operations using the already-deployed public hotspot network.