Monday, April 10, 2017

So Far, the HBO Model Leads OTT Subscription Video

It might be less than fully accurate to characterize over the top streaming services as being “like HBO” in emphasizing pre-recorded content or “like Sling or DirecTV Now” in focusing on live network streaming. Still, there are differences. Netflix long has been viewed by many as a functional substitute for HBO, while Sling has been viewed as a way of streaming TV networks.

In that regard, Netflix users average 28 hours of monthly viewing time, while Sling TV customers watch 47 viewing hours per month. To be sure, the lines are not impermeable, as Netflix and Amazon Prime, for example, create a growing amount of original series content.

Still, as Sling customers are seen as substituting OTT for linear TV subscriptions, you see the pattern. There is a difference between live streaming of networks and access to archival or other pre-recorded content.

The analogy is to sports or news content, which provide the highest value as “live” formats (even if the news category is lightly viewed in many age segments). That behavior suggests there are at least two big segments of the OTT business: the HBO style service and a replacement for “live” TV.

YouTube represents the third major segment: user-generated video, with a distinct revenue model mostly based on advertising, not a combination of advertising and user fees (subscriptions), at least for the most part, as YouTube also has moved closer to supplying a subscription TV service.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Value of Dense Backhaul and Cost of Stranded Assets Now Define Fixed Network Business Model

It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that backhaul is the purpose of a fixed network. After all, as many generations of engineers have been trained, “access” is the purpose of a fixed network, allowing customers to use the apps and features of the core network.

On the other hand, one often hears app providers called “edge providers,”defined by the Federal Communications Commission as “any individual or entity that provides any content, application or service over the Internet, and any individual or entity that provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service over the Internet.”

That is going to strike some of you--rightly--as being excessively broad. If all users and app, content or service providers are “edge providers,” then the concept has almost no meaning, as there are virtually no instances of any entity connected to the internet other than edge providers.

In other words, our language now suggests “everything” is “edge,” and nothing is “core.” That is wrong at the physical level, and also a topsy turvy inversion of networking elements.

So the first objection to the notion of “edge provider” is that it refers to “everyone” and “everything” connected to an IP network or the internet. In a broad sense, the “role” of a consumer, the role of a content or app provider and the role of an “internet access provider” remain distinct.

Big hyperscale data centers, central offices, private and public servers operated and used by enterprises, content, app and service providers are one thing. End users are another, and the networks that connect users are different from each of those categories.

Still, in a functional sense, whatever we choose to call the facilities called the “access network,” those facilities functionally provide backhaul (or “fronthaul,” services): cell tower to switching center; radios to controllers; phones to switches or servers; PCs to servers; sensors to servers.

Functionally, it is all backhaul, even if, technically, backhaul connects the mobile network to the wired network, while fronthaul connects radios with controllers. In other words, all access is backhaul.

That is especially true now that most human being get “access” to servers and switches from a mobile device connected to cellular network radios or a Wi-Fi router. For a telecom or network engineer, “access” is a specific part of the wired network, distinct from the “distribution” or “trunking” network and the “transport” or wide area network.

In a different functional sense, access is the radio link between a device and the wired network. But the last few miles of the wired network represent as much as 80 percent of all network investment.

That has huge implications in facilities-based competitive markets, as stranded fixed network assets become a key part of the business model. “Stranded assets” are “access lines” which have no paying customers on them. In facilities-based competitive markets such as the United States, that means no single supplier typically has a paying customer on more than 40 percent of deployed facilities.

Put another way, up to 60 percent of the invested access network capital is “stranded.”

On the other hand, fixed access assets used for backhaul become more important, as small cell architectures place a premium on dense backhaul networks. So it is a safe prediction that, in coming years, the value of fixed networks will be a contest between the cost of stranded assets and the value of dense backhaul assets.

Friday, April 7, 2017

Telco Voice Stranded Assets Now About Half of all Locations

Stranded assets are a growing business model issue for large tier-one service providers. Consider that, between 2012 and 2015, U.S. fixed network switched voice connections dropped from 96 million to 64.6 million, a decline of 33 percent in just three years.

Of course, some additional lines were supplied by telcos, using voice over internet protocol platforms, so the extent of the voice services loss is less than appears, looking only at switched line loss.

The point is that nearly half of the total voice market now is supplied by attacking service providers, not telcos.

In other words, a fixed network built to serve “everyone” is used by about half of homes passed. That means the cost to serve each customer is twice as much as it used to be, as customers wind up paying for network investment that is stranded, and does not generate revenue.

Assume there are about 126 million U.S. households, about 98 percent of which are passed by a telco network. That implies some 123.5 million locations, of which perhaps 53 percent buy voice service.

That means the whole telco voice network derives revenue from about 65 million homes, or perhaps 52 percent of locations. And the problem seems to be getting worse, as consumers seem to be buying fewer telco fixed voice lines every year. For the market as a whole, that is offset by consumers buying cable TV fixed voice services, but even cable operators now are losing voice accounts.


For most of us, the idea that voice was a product like any other was unthinkable prior to the mid-1990s, for one simple reason: accounts and usage had risen steadily for more than a hundred years. And when use of primary lines seemed saturated, people started buying second lines. At first it might have been for use by teenagers in a household. Then demand for dial-up internet access happened. The point is that usage seemed only to move in one direction: up.

In the U.S. market, that cracked in either 2000 or 2001, depending on which data sources one looks at.


Global fixed access lines might have peaked about the same time. In the U.S. market, minutes of use peaked in 2000.


These days, nearly half of U.S.  homes (47.4 percent) had only mobile phones during the first half of 2015. At the present rate of change, sometime in 2017 it is likely that at least half of all U.S. homes will not have a fixed line telephone service.  

Also, more than 66 percent of all U.S. adults aged 25 to 34 and of adults renting their homes were living in mobile-only households.




Those are clear examples of product substitution and product lifecycles. People decided to use fixed telephony less, and mobile telephony more. Text messaging for a while was the big driver of incremental revenue in the mobile business, but that now has passed its peak, to be followed by mobile internet access as the growth driver.

Those are some of the changes we have seen over the past several decades.

Three Decades of Disruption
1980
2015
Natural monopoly
Oligopoly
High margin
Moderate to low margin
Low to moderate adoption
High adoption
Low innovation
High innovation
Stable markets
Unstable markets
Compete on quality
Compete on price
Fixed network dominates
Mobile network dominates
Tightly integrated apps and network
Open network
Owned app creation
3rd-party app creation
Sell app, use network access
Sell network access (dumb pipe)
Voice business model
Internet access, mobile business model
Similar business models globally
Growing diversity of business models
99.999% uptime
99.9% or “good enough” availability
Few lead apps
Many lead apps
IT adoption: enterprise; SMB; consumer
IT adoption: consumer/SMB to enterprise


Changes in U.S. Net Neutrality Coming

As expected, the new chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will roll back or modify some elements of the current network neutrality rules, while shifting some enforcement to the Federal Trade Commission, while retaining the original sense of the “Internet freedoms” principles of earlier rules that emphasized the right to use all lawful apps, without blocking.

Among the bigger issues is the notion that network neutrality requires mandatory “best effort only” service for consumer users, without any allowances for quality of service mechanisms.

What is not clear is whether the present complete ban on paid prioritization (“fast lanes”) will be changed, however. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that internet service providers will be barred from providing quality of service mechanisms only for their owned services or apps. But QoS might well be allowed if all app providers can have the same QoS applied to their services as well.

The big issue is whether such entities have to pay for such features. Some of the larger ISPs maintain any app provider--including themselves--can use QoS features under the same terms and conditions any ISP applies to itself.

Most likely, the new rules to be made public in a few months, will roll back the regulation of internet access as a common carrier service until Title II of the Communications Act.

All such changes in regulatory framework can change business models, or potential business models, for the regulated actors. Ending common carrier regulation can, in principle, lead to more changes in prices, terms and conditions, at a faster pace.

As always, the degree of competition in the market will shape the direction of any such changes, and the amount of consumer welfare that might result.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Comcast Will Offer Unlimited and Usage-Based Mobile Plans

Though Comcast expects the new Xfinity Mobile service will be profitable, the biggest value is viewed as retention of customers, with the bundling of the triple play now becoming a quadruple play.


Xfinity Mobile customers will have two main pricing choice, an unlimited data plan or a usage-based plan.


The unlimited price will either be $45 or $65 per month per line up to five lines, with the lower monthly price reserved for customers on Comcast’s “best” X1 video packages.


The usage-based plan costs $12 per gigabyte of mobile data across all lines on an account, cased on actual usage.


Comcast’s prices arguably are quite competitive with prices charged by the largest U.S. mobile providers. Project Fi data costs $10 a gigabyte.


Xfinity’s unlimited plan costs $45 to $65 per line.

At launch, Xfinity Mobile is expected to support Apple iPhones, as well as Samsung or LG Android devices.

Comcast Launching its Mobile Service

At long last, Comcast is reportedly launching its mobile service, Xfinity Mobile, with a formal announcement expected shortly. Comcast’s mobile service will have nationwide coverage but is expected to be marketed only to Comcast customers, about  50 million potential homes.

Separately, Charter Communications could launch its own mobile service in 2018. In a mobile market where most of the market share is held by the top-four national providers, Comcast and Charter likely will represent the same sort of market share threat cable TV companies proved to be in the consumer voice and business special access markets.

Perhaps not many think Comcast and Charter will do as well as they have in the consumer internet access business, where the cable firms are the leading providers. But few would likely doubt that the new cable challengers will take some market share initially, and sizable share, ultimately.

Cable executives often in the past have said they would be careful about getting into yet another mature business that is fiercely competitive. And yet, that is precisely what they will be doing.




Once Upon a Time, Voice was Not a "Product" with a Life Cycle

For most of us, the idea that voice was a product like any other was unthinkable prior to the mid-1990s, for one simple reason: accounts and usage had risen steadily for more than a hundred years. And when use of primary lines seemed saturated, people started buying second lines. At first it might have been for use by teenagers in a household. Then demand for dial-up internet access happened. The point is that usage seemed only to move in one direction: up.

In the U.S. market, that cracked in either 2000 or 2001, depending on which data sources one looks at.


Global fixed access lines might have peaked about the same time. In the U.S. market, minutes of use peaked in 2000.


These days, nearly half of U.S.  homes (47.4 percent) had only mobile phones during the first half of 2015. At the present rate of change, sometime in 2017 it is likely that at least half of all U.S. homes will not have a fixed line telephone service.  

Also, more than 66 percent of all U.S. adults aged 25 to 34 and of adults renting their homes were living in mobile-only households.




Those are clear examples of product substitution and product lifecycles. People decided to use fixed telephony less, and mobile telephony more. Text messaging for a while was the big driver of incremental revenue in the mobile business, but that now has passed its peak, to be followed by mobile internet access as the growth driver.

Those are some of the changes we have seen over the past several decades.

Three Decades of Disruption
1980
2015
Natural monopoly
Oligopoly
High margin
Moderate to low margin
Low to moderate adoption
High adoption
Low innovation
High innovation
Stable markets
Unstable markets
Compete on quality
Compete on price
Fixed network dominates
Mobile network dominates
Tightly integrated apps and network
Open network
Owned app creation
3rd-party app creation
Sell app, use network access
Sell network access (dumb pipe)
Voice business model
Internet access, mobile business model
Similar business models globally
Growing diversity of business models
99.999% uptime
99.9% or “good enough” availability
Few lead apps
Many lead apps
IT adoption: enterprise; SMB; consumer
IT adoption: consumer/SMB to enterprise


Directv-Dish Merger Fails

Directv’’s termination of its deal to merge with EchoStar, apparently because EchoStar bondholders did not approve, means EchoStar continue...