Vodafone Turning a Revenue Corner?

Vodafone revenue declined, year over year, for the period ending in March 2015.

But revenue has been growing in recent quarters, a sign some interpret as evidence the cyclical dip is over. 

In fact, many seem to believe broader market revenue growth will reignite in 2017, after stabilizing in 2015 and 2016.

Unfortunately, the full-year results have not been unusual over the last several years. Revenue declined in 2014 and 2013 as well. Without Verizon, results would have been worse.  

Revenue growth was nearly flat between 2010 and 2012. Across Western Europe, forecasts for revenue growth are negative. The issue is whether the revenue pressure is structural or cyclical.

Since 2011, Vodafone has had a negative 3.4 percent revenue growth rate, the impact, one might easily conclude, of selling its stake in Verizon Wireless.

At least some believe the problems are cyclical.

To be sure, some analysts have forecast similar problems in the U.S. mobile market, and so far, the predictions arguably have failed to emerge, although some might argue the profit margin for mobile Internet data is plummeting.

A study sponsored by Tellabs, and published in 2011, pointed out declining margins for mobile Internet access. But that is not the same thing as declining margins across the whole business, for every service provider. AT&T and Verizon have had different results than Sprint or T-Mobile US.

Also, observers might disagree about what is happening in the U.S. prepaid segment. Some have argued prepaid will grow. Others might argue that it appears prepaid users are migrating to postpaid plans, as the U.S. mobile marketing wars are making postpaid a more affordable option.

If Zero Rating Leads Rapidly to Full Use of the Open Internet, is that a Problem?

The debate over zero rating is complicated because it spans domains; tactics for increasing Internet access and use, and also highly valued principles.

On one hand, some think Internet.org is a proven way to dramatically increase sampling of the Internet by people who have not used it before, as well as a bundle of value that has proven to create significant sustainable demand for Internet access services.

Some matters are incontestable: if one’s objective is to quickly encourage people to try the Internet and its apps, Internet.org has proven it works.

It also is true that Internet.org raises some thorny issues about “permissionless innovation” and the notion of curated apps.

No doubt, Internet.net curates apps. It perhaps is not, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues,

And “neutrality” actually is not the central issue. Curation is the issue.

As EFF notes, the  “guidelines are neutral as to the subject matter of the site.” In other words, no category of apps, or type of content, are excluded.

On the other hand, Internet.org knows full well there are severe bandwidth limitations in its target markets. To improve end user experience, Internet.org deliberately wants apps curated so that they work reasonably well even in a very challenging bandwidth environment.

In other words, Internet.org wants the apps to work even on inexpensive feature phones, on slow data networks. So yes, apps have to “ask permission” in terms of being architected to work on bandwidth-limited networks.

Specifically, that means stripping out images greater than 1Mb in size, videos, VoIP calls, Flash and Java applets and JavaScript.

EFF would prefer a uniformly rate-limited or data-capped free service. “We have confidence that it would be possible to provide a limited free Internet access service that is secure, and that doesn't rely on Facebook and its partners to maintain a central list of approved sites,” EFF argues.

The matter is complicated. Keep in mind that nobody gets paid anything as part of the Internet.org program. All apps and app providers can participate. The program works.

Against that, EFF suggests a program that simply offers free access.

Ignoring the philosophical objections to curation, it is not so clear that simple “no charge” access is sustainable. That is not to disparage the effort; simply to acknowledge that large numbers of mobile service providers have not yet done so.

We do know, on the other hand, that time-limited programs such as Internet.org has organized, with “free access” ending at some point, have worked to significantly expand the base of regular Internet users.

Globe Telecom in the Philippines found the number of data users on Globe’s network doubled, after offering Facebook on a zero rated basis for about a year.

The portion of Globe’s prepaid subscriber base who were active on mobile data expanded from 14 percent in September 2013 to 25 percent in November 2014, Facebook and Globe say.

In other words, the mobile Internet customer base nearly doubled.

Globe’s Free Facebook campaign (and similar internet outreach efforts by other players in the market), led to a six million increase in the number of active mobile internet users in the Philippines as a whole.

Both EFF and Internet.org support rapidly getting people to use the Internet. Globe Telecom found “free Facebook” did so.

There are philosophical issues and principles at stake, to be sure. But Globe Telecom’s experience might suggest the disagreement is more about tactics. Rather quickly, people migrate off the promotions and to the open Internet.

An Embarassment of Riches for High Speed Access in Singapore

M1 has become Singapore's first operator to offer a 10 Gbps service over the national fiber network, the “Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network.”

M1 has also launched a 1Gbps service aimed at small and mid-sized businesses, priced at S$996 (US$796) per month for up to 10 access points and public Wi-Fi provisioning.

Separately, MyRepublic has launched the nation's first 1Gbps no-contract fiber service as part of plans to expand its presence in the market.

MyRepublic will offer the no-contract gigabit  service to consumers at S$69.99 per month. A two-year contract sports a price of S$49.99.

The total fixed network broadband market, based on current accounts, is a bit over 11.5 million, total, including all platforms (fiber, digital subscriber line, cable TV).

The existence of the Nationwide Broadband Network means any service provider can buy wholesale access at speeds up to 10 Gbps and resell service in Singapore.

The total fixed network broadband market, based on current accounts, is a bit over 11.5 million, total, including all platforms (fiber, digital subscriber line, cable TV). The

Millimeter Wave Spectrum Potentially Available for Communications is Truly Prodigious

It sometimes is hard to comprehend just how much useful communications spectrum exists in the millimeter wave bands (3 GHz to 300 GHz), even if some blocks already are allocated and even if  high attenuation has key network architecture implications.

“You can take all of the useful spectrum we now use from DC to 30 GHz and drop it into the lower end of the millimeter-wave region and still have 240 GHz left over,” said Lou Frenzel of Electronic Design.

“The unlicensed band at 60 GHz contains more spectrum than has been used by every satellite, cellular, WiFi, AM Radio, FM Radio, and television station in the world,” some would say.

Spectrum at 28 GHz, 38 GHz, and 70-80 GHz looks especially promising for next-generation cellular systems, many would argue.

The bandwidth available in the 70 GHz to 80 GHz frequency band, a total of 10 GHz, is more than the sum total of all other licensed spectrum available for wireless communication in the United States, for example.

Some four bands in the upper millimeter wave region have been opened for commercial applications.

Of the four bands, the 59-64 GHz band (commonly referred to as V-band or the 60GHz band) is governed by FCC Part 15 for unlicensed operations. The band us suited to very short range point-to-point and point-to-multipoint applications.

The 92-95 GHz band (commonly referred to as W-band or the 94 GHz band) is also governed by the FCC Part 15 regulations for unlicensed operation, though for indoor applications only.

The 94 GHz band may also be used for licensed outdoor applications for point-to-point wireless communication per FCC Part 101 regulations.

However the band is less spectrally efficient than the other three bands due to an excluded band at 94 to 94.1 GHz.

The 71 GHz to 76 GHz and 81 GHz to 86GHz regions (commonly referred to as E-band or the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands), are reserved by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for licensed operation, as the most ideally suited millimeter wave band for point-to-point wireless communication applications, some would traditionally say.

With new spectrum sharing techniques developing, it is not so clear how access might eventually evolve across the millimeter wave region.

What is clear is that a prodigious amount of new communications spectrum is available, albeit with signal attenuation issues.

source: University of Notre Dame

Quite a Lot Can Change in 25 Years

Quite a lot can change in 25 years. So it is with the cable TV market. In 1993, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that the U.S. cable TV market (linear subscription TV) was not generally competitive, allowing local franchising authorities to regulate rates for basic cable tiers of service.

In 1993, cable operators had 95 percent market share. By 2013, cable TV share had dropped to 54 percent.

From 2012 to 2013 the number of subscribers dropped from 101 million to 100.9 million, with most of the losses coming from cable TV operators.

Satellite TV market share was 34 percent, while telephone company providers had gained 11 percent market share.

The FCC now is considering whether, given the state of the linear video market, the opposite general conclusion should hold, namely that cable TV should be presumed to operate in effectively competitive markets.

Furthermore, most observers believe linear video already has passed its peak, and will, with greater speed, begin to falter even more as streaming alternatives come to market.

Under such conditions, it likely does not make sense to regulate a declining market too actively.

Facilities-Based Competition Offers More Room for Innovation, Typically

Among the reasons U.S. retail communications service providers do not like the new common carrier regulation of consumer Internet access, both mobile and fixed, is that common carrier regulation introduces huge amounts of uncertainty in what otherwise would be rather simple pricing and packaging decisions.

The argument is pretty simple: any single pricing or packaging decision can, under the common carrier rules, be challenged at the Federal Communications Commission, potentially opening an inquiry that could take a year to resolve.

Obviously, given the speed at which most communications markets evolve, that introduces huge amounts of delay, even when the review process eventually allows a service provider to proceed with a change.

There are other potential implications. In the United Kingdom, Ofcom the U.K. communications regulator, says it will not rule out ordering a structural breakup of BT, into a wholesale-only network services arm, and a retail provider operation.

Such structural separation is a feature of the communications framework in Singapore, New Zealand and Australia.

Proponents of structural separation favor the perceived positive impact on competition. Opponents tend to focus on the possible limits on innovation. When all providers are buying wholesale access and features from one supplier, it is harder to differentiate.

One example of facilities-based competition comes in the U.S. fixed network high speed access market, where Google Fiber and Comcast, on their own networks, can create disruptive offers that would not be possible if they were buying wholesale access, just as all other retail services suppliers do.

XCom Global Offers Free Internet for Nepal Earthquake Aid Workers.

XCom Global, Inc., a provider of low cost wireless Internet access rental services for international travelers, is offering free Internet access to relief workers who are heading to Nepal to aid in disaster recovery.

XCom Global will supply its World Wi-Fi hotspots at no charge for relief workers.

Relief workers who would like to request a rental device should contact XCom Global at 1-877-520-8242 or make a request via the link on the company website: https://www.xcomglobal.com/wi-fi-disaster-relief.

Rental units will be shipped to them in advance of their departure from the U.S. at no charge.

XCom Global also has expanded Long Term Evolution coverage in Asia-Pacific.

In addition to Japan and South Korea, LTE connectivity is now available in Thailand, Taiwan, China and Australia.

XCom Global’s personal mobile hotspots provide secure, reliable Internet connectivity for up to 10 Wi-Fi enabled devices, have all been pre-tested to ensure that they are compatible with the specific network requirements of the local carrier.

“LTE has been slow to fully roll out across the globe, but we are implementing coverage as quickly as the markets allow,” said Joe Fennell, Chief Operating Officer (COO), XCom Global, Inc. “We are committed to providing the fastest connectivity possible. Our LTE service provides travelers with connection speeds of up to 75Mbps. As a comparison, fast home Internet connections are around 24Mbps with an average connection speed of only 5.8 Mbps.”

XCom Global’s high-speed Internet access rental service provides international travelers unlimited data usage and the freedom to wirelessly roam abroad in over 175 countries around the world. T

Travelers arrange for their coverage before they set out on their trip so they can have an affordable data connection upon arrival.

No technical expertise or unauthorized unlocking is required to receive a private and secure Wi-Fi connection using the company’s World Wi-Fi hotspots, including support for WPA2 and VPN pass-through. Customer service is available 24 hours a day.