5G Really Will Be Different From All Prior Mobile Networks, Says Telenor CEO

There is more evidence that mobile executives believe 5G really will be different from prior mobile generations. Most significantly, the business case is more speculative. “No customers will need 5G for current services,” said Telenor CEO Sigve Brekke. “Deployment likely will be more gradual and more driven by the business case.”

Also significantly, Brekke believes 5G will be quite different from prior generations in another sense: where mobile-only deployments were possible in the past, 5G will require ownership of fixed network assets.

Brekke’s comments also illustrate another novel element of 5G: it is the first mobile network where the business case will rest on new services driven by enterprise customers deploying internet of things networks, not “human users.”

Alternative access technologies also complicate the business case, as it is not yet clear how extensive the mobile network access role will be.

“We foresee 6.4 billion internet of things connections using fixed, mobile and low-power wide-area (LPWA) networks in the world by 2025,” say Sherrie Huang, Analysys Mason is lead analyst,  Asia-Pacific, and Michele Mackenzie, Analysys Mason is lead analyst for IoT and M2M.

“By 2025, more than half of the total IoT connections globally will be LPWA,” they also argue. That implies that just a bit less than half of all IoT connections will use either mobile or fixed networks for connectivity.

In other words, it is not clear how extensive the mobile access role eventually will be. In addition, most of the new revenue upside is going to come from ownership of the IoT platforms, services and apps, not the access services as such.

It is not at all yet clear how big a deal 5G will be as a platform to support internet of things applications, including industrial IoT.

It is clear that executives from Asia, Europe, the Americas believe that is a possibility, as there is significant thinking about investments in mobile, location tracking, wearables and voice recognition as key technologies that will transform the plant floor.

source: Zebra Technologies

One of the biggest debates that has not yet happened surrounds the internet of things revenue potential for mobile and other service providers.

While most observers seem to believe IoT will be the key new revenue source for 5G networks, others think the upside is going to be “bleak.” That matters for two major reasons. If the IoT revenue streams do not emerge, the payback from 5G networks might be minimal to negative.

Also, if IoT does not emerge as a major new revenue stream, mobile operator business models are going to be quite stressed, as IoT revenue is needed to balance lost voice and messaging revenues.

IoT services can contribute up to 15 percent to 20 percent of total revenue for Indian mobile operators, according to Rishi Mohan Bhatnagar, President, Aeris Communications.

Siddharth Thakkar, Analysys Mason consultant, believes IoT could contribute as little as five percent of revenues, up to perhaps 10 percent for a very successful operator. “Currently, most telecoms operators earn less than one percent of revenues from IoT.  Vodafone is an exception in that it earns around 1.4 percent of revenues from IoT,” he said.

Which forecast proves correct will be crucial. At about five percent new revenues from IoT, most mobile operators will find the 5G business case quite challenging. At 20 percent, 5G will likely have proven to be a successful gamble.

In two distinct large markets--India and the United States--competition is “not helping,” in terms of service provider profitability. Not that profits have been robust.

source: cis-india.org

But market entry by Reliance Jio, with a disruptive pricing attack--is destroying industry profitability.

The U.S. market is in what some have called a “race to the bottom” as well. Except for T-Mobile US, which is largely responsible for the latest price war, revenues are flat or dropping for the other three major service providers.

source: businessinsider.com

That is why internet of things revenues and 5G fixed wireless are likely to matter so much. Absent creation of big new revenue streams, mobile service providers are going to face severe stress in their core access businesses.

5G Really Will Be Different From All Prior Mobile Networks, Says Telenor CEO

There is more evidence that mobile executives believe 5G really will be different from prior mobile generations. Most significantly, the business case is more speculative. “No customers will need 5G for current services,” said Telenor CEO Sigve Brekke. “Deployment likely will be more gradual and more driven by the business case.”

Also significantly, Brekke believes 5G will be quite different from prior generations in another sense: where mobile-only deployments were possible in the past, 5G will require ownership of fixed network assets.

Brekke’s comments also illustrate another novel element of 5G: it is the first mobile network where the business case will rest on new services driven by enterprise customers deploying internet of things networks, not “human users.”

Alternative access technologies also complicate the business case, as it is not yet clear how extensive the mobile network access role will be.

“We foresee 6.4 billion internet of things connections using fixed, mobile and low-power wide-area (LPWA) networks in the world by 2025,” say Sherrie Huang, Analysys Mason is lead analyst,  Asia-Pacific, and Michele Mackenzie, Analysys Mason is lead analyst for IoT and M2M.

“By 2025, more than half of the total IoT connections globally will be LPWA,” they also argue. That implies that just a bit less than half of all IoT connections will use either mobile or fixed networks for connectivity.

In other words, it is not clear how extensive the mobile access role eventually will be. In addition, most of the new revenue upside is going to come from ownership of the IoT platforms, services and apps, not the access services as such.

It is not at all yet clear how big a deal 5G will be as a platform to support internet of things applications, including industrial IoT.

It is clear that executives from Asia, Europe, the Americas believe that is a possibility, as there is significant thinking about investments in mobile, location tracking, wearables and voice recognition as key technologies that will transform the plant floor.

source: Zebra Technologies

One of the biggest debates that has not yet happened surrounds the internet of things revenue potential for mobile and other service providers.

While most observers seem to believe IoT will be the key new revenue source for 5G networks, others think the upside is going to be “bleak.” That matters for two major reasons. If the IoT revenue streams do not emerge, the payback from 5G networks might be minimal to negative.

Also, if IoT does not emerge as a major new revenue stream, mobile operator business models are going to be quite stressed, as IoT revenue is needed to balance lost voice and messaging revenues.

IoT services can contribute up to 15 percent to 20 percent of total revenue for Indian mobile operators, according to Rishi Mohan Bhatnagar, President, Aeris Communications.

Siddharth Thakkar, Analysys Mason consultant, believes IoT could contribute as little as five percent of revenues, up to perhaps 10 percent for a very successful operator. “Currently, most telecoms operators earn less than one percent of revenues from IoT.  Vodafone is an exception in that it earns around 1.4 percent of revenues from IoT,” he said.

Which forecast proves correct will be crucial. At about five percent new revenues from IoT, most mobile operators will find the 5G business case quite challenging. At 20 percent, 5G will likely have proven to be a successful gamble.

In two distinct large markets--India and the United States--competition is “not helping,” in terms of service provider profitability. Not that profits have been robust.

source: cis-india.org

But market entry by Reliance Jio, with a disruptive pricing attack--is destroying industry profitability.

The U.S. market is in what some have called a “race to the bottom” as well. Except for T-Mobile US, which is largely responsible for the latest price war, revenues are flat or dropping for the other three major service providers.

source: businessinsider.com

That is why internet of things revenues and 5G fixed wireless are likely to matter so much. Absent creation of big new revenue streams, mobile service providers are going to face severe stress in their core access businesses.

You Wouldn't Buy a Car Because it Has Tires

Very few of us would buy an automobile without tires, or a mobile phone that could not make calls. On the other hand, we do not buy cars because they have tires or mobile phones because they make calls or mobile phone service because it supports voice, text and internet access.

In large part, that is the business model problem faced by mobile and fixed access service providers in mature markets. The former key revenue drivers now arguably are valuable features--but just that, valuable features--and not dominant revenue drivers, not the reason people decide to buy a communications service.

That conversion of “revenue-generating services” to “useful features” can be seen clearly in OTT voice and messaging. Despite much hope in some quarters that service providers could create their own VoIP services that generated revenue comparable to legacy voice, that has been hard to achieve.

In the U.S. market, only cable operators generally were able to do so, and then only because their legacy revenue from voice was “zero.” Generally speaking, VoIP has shown a pattern of disrupting and then largely destroying the legacy markets.

Eventually, that is going to work out in a predictable manner: mobile internet access will be an essential feature of a smartphone service, but perhaps not a growing driver of revenue. Shockingly, for some, mobile internet access might actually become a declining revenue source.

Although 51 percent of U.S. households are mobile-only for voice, and about 70 percent of Millennials (25 to 34) are mobile-only for voice, voice does not get used much.

About 53 percent of respondents to a Gallup survey reported they use a home landline “not at all,” while 44 percent reported using a mobile phone for calling “a little,” and 38 percent said they used mobile voice “a lot.”

source: gallup.com

Fully 68 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds who were part of a Gallup study in 2014 said  that they texted “a lot” the previous day; compared to 47 percent among 30- to 49-year-olds and 26 percent among 50- to 64-year-olds.

Average monthly voice minutes used by 18-year-olds to 34-year-olds plummeted from about 1,200 in 2008 to 900 in 2010. Texting among 18- to 24-year-olds more than doubled over this period, soaring from 600 to over 1,400 texts a month.

A mobile phone must support voice, texting and internet access. A mobile phone service must support those features as well. But mobile service revenue in many markets largely is dictated by the cost of internet access, not voice or messaging costs, which are relatively minimal. In fact, for most service plans, voice and messaging are included in a basic "you can use the network" price.

For the most part, revenue is driven by internet access and video entertainment services.

The Fundamental Mobile Operator Problem: Products Become Features

Much of the business model problem faced by mobile and fixed access service providers in mature markets is that former key revenue drivers now arguably are valuable features--but just that, valuable features--and not dominant revenue drivers.

In the case of voice, absolute usage of voice services is falling, and in many cases absolute numbers of account sold also are in decline. And while message volumes might not be tumbling as much, most of the messaging volume growth occurs on the over-the-top messaging apps.

In other words, the ability to make a call is a valuable and essential feature, but arguably not the key reason people buy smartphones and use mobile networks. With the exception of entertainment video, even mobile internet access, which has recently driven revenue growth, sees average revenue per user pressure.

That conversion of “revenue-generating services” to “useful features” can be seen clearly in OTT voice and messaging. Despite much hope in some quarters that service providers could create their own VoIP services that generated revenue comparable to legacy voice, that has been hard to achieve.

In the U.S. market, only cable operators generally were able to do so, and then only because their legacy revenue from voice was “zero.” Generally speaking, VoIP has shown a pattern of disrupting and then largely destroying the legacy markets.

Eventually, that is going to work out in a predictable manner: mobile internet access will be an essential feature of a smartphone service, but perhaps not a growing driver of revenue. Shockingly, for some, mobile internet access might actually become a declining revenue source.

Although 51 percent of U.S. households are mobile-only for voice, and about 70 percent of Millennials (25 to 34) are mobile-only for voice, voice does not get used much.

About 53 percent of respondents to a Gallup survey reported they use a home landline “not at all,” while 44 percent reported using a mobile phone for calling “a little,” and 38 percent said they used mobile voice “a lot.”

source: gallup.com

Fully 68 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds who were part of a Gallup study in 2014 said  that they texted “a lot” the previous day; compared to 47 percent among 30- to 49-year-olds and 26 percent among 50- to 64-year-olds.

Average monthly voice minutes used by 18-year-olds to 34-year-olds plummeted from about 1,200 in 2008 to 900 in 2010. Texting among 18- to 24-year-olds more than doubled over this period, soaring from 600 to over 1,400 texts a month.

Unlimited Plans Convince Consumers Network Works Better

“Perception is reality,” an old adage suggests. And that appears to be true for mobile customers using unlimited plans offered by all the four biggest national U.S. mobile services providers.

According to a new J.D. Power study, customers with unlimited data plans believe they experience a lower incidence of overall network problems, data problems, messaging problems, and calling problems than those with data allowances, even if J.D. Power suggests the type of plan actually should not make any difference.

Keep in mind that the J.D. Power ratings are self reported by consumers, and are not directly measurable. Still, the important fact is that unlimited usage plans seem to convince consumers other important attributes of their experience--network problems in general, internet access problems, voice problems and messaging issues actually are lower.

Customers with unlimited data plans report an average of 11 overall network quality problems per 100 (PP100) connections, compared to an average of 13 PP100 among customers with data plans that are not “unlimited.”

Users also report lower incidences of data problems (15 PP100 compared to  16PP100), as well as fewer  messaging problems (5 PP100 vs. 6 PP100). Customers on unlimited plans also believe they have fewer calling problems (12 PP100 vs. 15 PP100).

This trend holds true among both power users (100 or more network connections in the previous 48 hours) and lighter users (fewer than 100 network connections in the previous 48 hours), J.D. Powers says.

In many ways, the findings show the importance of perception. “Whether a customer has unlimited data or a data allowance on their wireless plan should not really affect their overall network quality, but our data shows that—consistently—wireless customers who are not worried about data overages have a much more positive perception of their network’s quality,” said Peter Cunningham, J.D. Power technology, media, and telecommunications practice lead.

Customers with unlimited data “are impressed with data speeds, which likely contributes to their perception of fewer problems,” J.D. Power says.

Unless mobile operators have come up with some new, unheralded way of prioritizing services for their “unlimited” customers, the perceptions of “fewer problems” could be among the actual business benefits for mobile service providers, as such plans apparently convince users other elements of service actually are better than when they used usage-based plans.

As hard as it is to convince consumers network quality has improved, unlimited plans seem to do so, even if engineers might say precisely the opposite should happen, all other things being equal.

Why Connected Car Could be So Big for Mobile Operators

The connected car ecosystem is among the most-promising for mobile operators for several reasons. First, firms such as Verizon and AT&T already earn revenue in that ecosystem, so it is not completely-new terrain. But there are other reasons.

Connected vehicle systems promise huge changes in the cost of transportation, and huge changes in industry dynamics. And anything that promises huge disruption of existing industrial business models always will get attention, investment and rearrange revenue streams and business models.

So connected transportation could provide huge new roles for access providers who move up the stack into platforms, services and roles.

“If you remove the cost of the human driver from an on-demand trip, the cost goes down by perhaps three quarters,” argues Benedict Evans, “If you can also remove or reduce the cost of the insurance, once the accident rate has fallen, it goes down even further.”

So, autonomous vehicles are “rocket-fuel for on-demand” transportation, he argues. And, logically, potential reshaping of auto sales and support markets, demand for urban parking (possibly including the cost of adding mandatory parking facilities in large buildings) and other externalities.

Demand for, and use of, public transportation could change dramatically, in many cities. Oddly enough, if there is less congestion overall, might public transportation journey times be shorter? And, if so, might more people use public transportation?

On the other hand, will on-demand transportation actually reduce congestion as much as some believe? Might some passengers who might have chosen public transportation choose on-demand modes instead?

And, if so, what effect might that have on the business case for supplying bus service in many areas? Might it be cheaper for a city or municipal transportation service to rely on on-demand as a substitute product, in some instances?

Up to this point, on-demand ride sharing has competed with use of taxis. In the future, might on-demand also compete with package delivery services, owned vehicles and bus service?

Such changes are hard to model. But all suggest the widespread implications of autonomous vehicles for mobile service providers, especially when those operators can create or build roles elsewhere in the ecosystem beyond communications.

"Going to Save Some Lives"

Sometimes the health of your business; your industry or even important goals such as ensuring that everyone has internet access are not the most-important thing. Saving lives; helping out; serving other people is much more important. "Going to save some lives, indeed."



Personally, since animal charities are among the ones I normally support, I'll be looking to help organizations such as Houston SPCA, an animal shelter and is also taking in stray or displaced pets. 

Most of us do not think about it, but in addition to people being displaced, pets get abandoned or lost as well. You can donate here to Houston SPCA. 

Also, since Catholic Charities is another regularly-supported effort, I'll also be supporting the special effort for Houston. Donate to Catholic Charities for Houston here.  

Other options include: 

GLOBAL GIVING: An international organization that supports local charities and organizations. You can donate here.

SAVE THE CHILDREN: An international organization focused on children, making sure they have a healthy start to life. You can donate here.

DIRECT RELIEF: An international organization that provides emergency relief and helps equip local health providers. You can donate here.

AMERICARES: An international organization that has deployed an emergency response team to Houston and focuses on health. You can donate here.

RED CROSS: An international network of emergency relief. You can donate here.

INTERNATIONAL RELIEF TEAMS: An international organization providing more than a thousand personal hygiene kits to flood refugees in Houston, among other emergency services. You can donate here.

PORTLIGHT: A U.S.-based organization that will help displaced residents who have disabilities or otherwise need special care. You can donate online here if you scroll down their main page.

HEART-TO-HEART INTERNATIONAL: An international organization which will help provide medical supplies. You can donate here.

SOUTHERN BAPTIST DISASTER RELIEF: An international volunteer organization which is providing emergency relief. You can donate here.

AIRBNB: If you can offer up room locally for displaced residents and evacuees, or if you need a place to stay, AirBNB will help facilitate that. Here’s more information.

SOUTH TEXAS BLOOD & TISSUE DONATION: You can donate here. Local residents can also donate blood in person.

TEXAS DIAPER BANK: You can donate here.

CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: You can donate here.

SAN ANTONIO FOOD BANK: You can donate here. Many displaced Houston residents will be relocated to San Antonio.

COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS: An umbrella organization coordinating shelters and organizations across Houston. You can donate here.