AT&T, Amazon Web Services Partner

AT&T and Amazon Web Services will work together to optimize delivery of integrated solutions built on the companies' respective cloud and networking capabilities.

The collaboration will focus in three main business areas, essentially melding AWS cloud computing capabilities with AT&T connectivity. In addition to cloud networking, Internet of Things and threat management will be areas where the two firms collaborate.

Though AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink and other telcos have gotten into the data center business, all might be looking to exit the business. Some might say this is another example of telco inability to innovate. Others might argue that telcos are no different than other firms trying to innovate: failure is more common than success.

None of the U.S. telcos have been able to outperform the hyperscale cloud computing specialists--such as AWS--or achieve the scale of the data center specialists (Equinix, Digital Realty).

Some bets will work better than others, whether undertaken by Google or AT&T. In this case, AT&T likely has concluded that operating its own data centers provides less value than once hoped.

Some might argue that is not a problem. AT&T and other service providers must keep looking for new services and revenue drivers. As would be the case for Google, Apple, Facebook or any other innovator, not every bet works out as expected.

Failure is simply part of the process of discovering where value really does lie.

When is "Fiber to Home" Not "Fiber to Home?"

When is “fiber to the home” not “fiber to the home?”

When the Internet service provider selling the service is Google Fiber or AT&T Fiber. Google Fiber already is exploring ways to extend Google Fiber to more areas and locations using fixed wireless.

Now AT&T says it will do the same.

“Under the AT&T Fiber umbrella brand we will use a variety of network technologies to connect more homes, apartments and business customer locations to ultra-fast and low-latency internet speeds,” said David Christopher, AT&T Entertainment Group CMO.

“This new brand includes, but is not limited to, the former AT&T GigaPower network,” he said. “We will announce additional network technologies and products in our AT&T Fiber umbrella brand in the near future.”

AT&T apparently is testing a number of fixed wireless alternatives, including some new methods, plus millimeter wave spectrum. That is beyond AT&T’s believe that its default platform will be wireless.

Gigabit Internet access now is the issue, not the access media.  

AT&T Eventually Will Want to Own More of the Content it Delivers

It has been a staple of strategy for the leading U.S. cable TV operators, for more than a couple of decades, that a distributor has to own at least some of the content it delivers. That is why the leading cable TV companies own programming assets.

Keep in mind that some questioned whether distributors (cable TV companies) would be “good” at operating programming entities. That has not proven to be a general problem, though execution always is an issue.

AT&T, already the largest U.S. supplier of linear video, and moving to become a major provider of “over the top” content, is likely to be subject to many of those same objections, much as telcos once were questioned as providers of linear video entertainment services.

That should logically lead to AT&T becoming an owner of content assets, for the same reasons cable TV operators made the move into content asset ownership: access might be a commodity; content is not.

If you want to know how it is that gross revenue for content services can grow, while gross revenue for other services declines, it is the difference between what is scarce, and what is not.

Simply, network access, plain vanilla voice and messaging are largely commodities. It is difficult to differentiate, there is lots of competition, many product substitutes and suppliers. But video entertainment is not an “access to the network” service.

Customers buy the content, not bandwidth; experiences they want, not minutes of use. Network access is simply part of the product, not the reason any consumer buys the product.

Given its commitment to content revenues, it is not a stretch to suggest that AT&T likely will follow the clear strategy followed by cable TV companies: own at least some of the content delivered by the content service.

That is among the antidotes for ever-declining average revenue per unit, per account or per user. Access, computing and transport follow Moore’s Law, in terms of price-per-unit of capacity. Content does not.

At least historically, content assets--where consumers perceive value--appreciate where it comes to price. Profit margins are easier to defend, as well.

So look for AT&T to make big moves into content ownership. It is a proven strategy for many tier-one video services providers.

U.S. 4G Network Performance Drops 40% to 50% Over Last Year

Source: TwinPrime

T-Mobile US had the fastest 4G mobile network speeds, according to an analysis by TwinPrime, meaning T-Mobile US got access to the network faster, and could download content faster.

T-Mobile US also had the lowest 4G network latency performance, at an average of 52 milliseconds, followed by Sprint at 55 milliseconds, and Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility both at 56 milliseconds.

Verizon Wireless ranked highest in terms of LTE network reach, covering 95.3 percent of the U.S. population, compared with 91.7 percent for T-Mobile US, 91.2 percent for Sprint and 91 percent for AT&T Mobility.

As eventually happens as networks become more-heavily loaded, performance is showing signs of  strain. LTE 4G networks now carry 91 percent of total U.S. mobile traffic.

The study found median LTE performance in most U.S. cities has dropped by 40 percent to 50 percent compared to our previous report. This staggering drop in performance could partly be explained by the increased LTE traffic share in these cities, or an increase in overall mobile data consumed by LTE devices.

Source: TwinPrime

Furthermore, the study also found that Wi-Fi tends to outperform LTE in every major city in the United States by a factor of two. In real user conditions, that translates to it being twice as fast to use an app over Wifi than over LTE.

That is a return to the situation that used to hold for 3G mobile networks, when Wi-Fi often was used because Wi-Fi was faster than 3G. Other tests had been showing that LTE 4G network access speeds outperformed Wi-Fi.

If you want to know why mobile operators argue they need more spectrum, the TwinPrime tests provide the answer.

Traffic is growing fast enough that performance now is visibly degraded. That same pressure is why small cell architectures are deemed strategic: small cells allow networks to reuse more of any amount of available spectrum.

Those same concerns drive interest in shared spectrum, bonding mobile and Wi-Fi spectrum, and LTE 4G networks accessing Wi-Fi directly.

The study includes over 6 billion data points collected from 600 apps with traffic across the United States, India and Europe, more than 1,500 different network operators and 2G, 3G, HSPA, HSPA-PLus, LTE and Wi-Fi networks.

T-Mobile US to Prioritize Smartphone Data Over Tethered Device Data When Network is Congested

Ignoring the issue of whether one can clearly distinguish between--or accomplish--network management and network neutrality, one frustration some of us might have about network neutrality is the insistence that packet prioritization is simply wrong, always and everywhere.

That arguably is not the case. Under conditions of congestion (when network management is required), user experience benefits from packet prioritization (non-neutral treatment) to preserve experience of apps that are highly sensitive to latency, such as voice or videoconferencing, for example.

Now T-Mobile US says it will--under conditions of congestion--prioritize traffic used directly by devices connected to the mobile network, compared to traffic used by tethered devices.

In other words, the management choice is to preserve smartphone experience over that of tethered devices, when the network is congested.

That is a preference for supporting user smartphone access (implying more preference for bandwidth supplied to customers when out and about), compared to customer use of their devices for tethering, presumably implying stationary usage settings.

To the extent that all networks are built with contention in mind, there always is a need for network management when congestion occurs. No network is built on the assumption that all conceivable customer demand, at the peak hour of the peak day, always will be supported without congestion.

That necessarily means some amount of network management is necessary. But it is hard to clearly distinguish between management to preserve user experience, under conditions of congestion, and "treating every packet equally."

DirecTV is Not a Competitor to U-verse; OTT is the Replacement for Linear TV

AT&T executives now have said that its new DirecTV Now over the top service will become the company’s primary video service within three to five years. That might be called the third shift in AT&T video services strategy.

First, there was U-verse video, delivered over the fiber-to-neighborhood network. Now AT&T primarily relies on satellite delivered DirecTV.

So a shift to primary reliance on OTT delivery would be the third shift in platform. There are some important potential implications. Some now argue that AT&T will shut down the satellite service entirely, at some point, in favor of OTT delivery as the sole distribution method.

There is a bit of irony there. When the DirecTV purchase first was announced, and before the approvals process was completed, some might have argued that AT&T was going to abandon U-verse.

That basically is happening. AT&T pushes new subscribers toward DirecTV, and not U-verse video. The U-verse brand apparently will be discontinued. At the same time, AT&T plans to zero rate DirecTV Now usage by customers of its mobile services.

What now seems to be shaping up is not just a DirecTV replacement of U-verse, but replacement of both U-verse and satellite delivery by a switch to streaming, on all AT&T network platforms, mobile and fixed.

So as it might well turn out, DirecTV was not a threat to U-verse. Instead, all linear delivery will be phased out in favor of streaming over all AT&T networks, fixed or mobile.

By zero rating entertainment video consumption, AT&T and others also are demonstrating that the entertainment video service is a managed service, like cable TV, satellite or telco TV, and not an “Internet” service.

By incorporating access into the cost of the purchased video content, AT&T and others are using the media, broadcast and linear video models, where delivery bandwidth is simply incorporated into the price of the product.

DirecTV is Not a Competitor to U-verse; OTT is the Replacement for Linear TV

AT&T executives now have said that its new DirecTV Now over the top service will become the company’s primary video service within three to five years. That might be called the third shift in AT&T video services strategy.

First, there was U-verse video, delivered over the fiber-to-neighborhood network. Now AT&T primarily relies on satellite delivered DirecTV.

So a shift to primary reliance on OTT delivery would be the third shift in platform. There are some important potential implications. Some now argue that AT&T will shut down the satellite service entirely, at some point, in favor of OTT delivery as the sole distribution method.

There is a bit of irony there. When the DirecTV purchase first was announced, and before the approvals process was completed, some might have argued that AT&T was going to abandon U-verse.

That basically is happening. AT&T pushes new subscribers toward DirecTV, and not U-verse video. The U-verse brand apparently will be discontinued. At the same time, AT&T plans to zero rate DirecTV Now usage by customers of its mobile services.

What now seems to be shaping up is not just a DirecTV replacement of U-verse, but replacement of both U-verse and satellite delivery by a switch to streaming, on all AT&T network platforms, mobile and fixed.

So as it might well turn out, DirecTV was not a threat to U-verse. Instead, all linear delivery will be phased out in favor of streaming over all AT&T networks, fixed or mobile.

By zero rating entertainment video consumption, AT&T and others also are demonstrating that the entertainment video service is a managed service, like cable TV, satellite or telco TV, and not an “Internet” service.

By incorporating access into the cost of the purchased video content, AT&T and others are using the media, broadcast and linear video models, where delivery bandwidth is simply incorporated into the price of the product.