Big Changes in Mobile Value Proposition, Roles, Revenue Coming?

The choice of internet protocol as the foundation for modern networks has been fateful for application and service providers. As Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam has said recently, in 2000 Verizon could  monetize the entire stack (26:58),  as it was vertically integrated and created and controlled all the apps provided over its network.

Today, Verizon has to compete horizontally, monetizing apps and features “above the network layer,” since it no longer controls or creates most of the applications used by its customers.

That is the difference between a fundamentally “open internet” app platform and the older “closed” telecom platform. McAdam would say the “iPhone changed everything.”

What he means, in large part, was that, in the smartphone era, people are “customers” only for a few Verizon-supplied apps (internet access, carrier voice and messaging, the Oath ad platform or connected car and other possible internet of things apps), but “users” of a universe of third party apps and services.

So Verizon now finds it has to work much harder at creating value and therefore revenue beyond the “internet connectivity” function. That is the foundation for all thinking about “moving up the stack” (supplying actual end user apps and services, not just access to the internet).

Even access is a problem, though. With 5G, for the first time, many customers--perhaps most-- will have choices to abandon fixed networks entirely, as they earlier abandoned use of fixed networks for voice.  Some users already are abandoning fixed network internet access and simply using their mobile phone accounts.  

The business implications could not be more profound. As everyone now knows, in the IP  framework, “usage” does not have a linear relationship with “service provider revenue.”

We are familiar with the fact that perhaps 80 percent to 90 percent of mobile device data usage happens “indoors.”  But that does not have a direct relationship with service provider revenue, as much of that connectivity happens over third party facilities (Wi-Fi) most-frequently not owned by the service provider, and from which the service provider earns no direct revenue from usage.

source: Informa

With the rise of new indoor connectivity options--including private 4G LTE, aggregation of Wi-Fi and mobile spectrum assets, possible venue communications providers and mobile speed and pricing that is directly competitive with fixed network plans --changes could be coming.

And it is far from certain how all those changes will play out. In fact, some would predict that, in a 5G era where mobile access is price and speed competitive with fixed alternatives, many users will start to rely on their mobile connections all the time, instead of shifting to Wi-Fi when indoors.

That could reverse recent trends, where Wi-Fi offload has been hugely significant. Nearly half of consumers surveyed about their connection choices suggest that with unlimited plans and 5G performance and price, they would simply stay on the 5G network all the time, as there would be no performance or cost advantage to shifting to Wi-Fi.

source: GSMA

That very fact (80 percent of data usage happens indoors, typically using Wi-Fi) is a foundation of retail pricing plans and strategies emphasizing “pay only for what you use” data access plans.

That also is behind thinking that some new ecosystem roles could be created, with large enterprises and venues possibly building their own “indoor” 4G and 5G networks, or integrators providing such services.

The point is that business models built on outdoor and indoor connectivity could change as 5G arrives. What is not so clear is precisely how matters change. Mobile operators could reclaim some relevance as providers of “indoor” connectivity. On the other hand, enterprises might reemerge as providers of their own premises networking, including mobile for the first time.

How all that affects revenue and perceived value remains unclear. One could argue that, in the 4G era, the value of a mobile connection remains “everywhere” connectivity, even if only about 20 percent of the actual fulfillment is from the outdoors mobile network.

In the 5G era, indoor fulfillment might shift back towards the mobile network, or could move away from Wi-Fi and towards specialized “indoor mobile” networks with varying ownership. In either case, the mobile service value proposition should increase.

The other big possible change is a shift in perceived value of fixed internet access versus mobile access. More customers might conclude that their use cases allow complete cutting of the fixed network cord.

Two Biggest U.S. Voice Providers are Not Telcos

Sign of the times: each of the two largest U.S. cable TV companies now have more voice subscribers than does AT&T, the largest fixed network telco.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, Charter Communications had 10,405,000 residential lines while Comcast had 10,351,000 accounts in service.  AT&T had 10,333,000 lines. So, for the first time, the largest U.S. “telephone companies” were cable TV providers, not telcos.

A key qualification is required, however. Mobile is the way most U.S. residents use voice services. Well over half of U.S. homes (53 percent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control) have no fixed telephone service at all. As recently as 2004, nearly 93 percent of U.S. homes had fixed network voice service.

And, as always in the internet era, usage and revenue can be very different matters. In 2011, for example, U.S. consumer spend on fixed network voice had dropped from 65 percent to perhaps 26 percent, compared to 2001 levels, while mobile revenue grew from 25 percent to nearly 50 percent of total household spend, according to analyst Chetan Sharma.

Internet access spending grew from 20 percent of household budgets in 2001 to about 33 percent in 2011, Sharma estimates. Video entertainment spend grew from less than 10 percent of budgets in 2001 to about 24 percent of budget by 2011.

source: Chetan Sharma

source: Centers for Disease Control

Such is the misfit between our legacy names for things and the new reality. Cable TV companies increasingly make most of their money from internet access, not voice. “Telcos” now likewise make most of their money from internet access, not voice.

Eventually, at least some major service providers will find they make 40 percent or more of total revenue from a range of services not directly related to internet access, voice or messaging. That already is the case for Comcast, and is close to the reality for AT&T, which earns about 31 percent of total revenue from entertainment video.

In fact, Comcast earns only about 29 percent of total revenue from its legacy TV business. Just as important, Comcast now earns about 37 percent of total revenue from applications, not services related to the access network (video, voice, internet access).

Over time, many tier-one service providers are going to have a similar profile, earning 40 percent or more of total revenue directly from applications (consumer and business), not managed services related to the ownership of the access network.

Full Mobile Substitution for Internet Access Coming?

Quite often in business, as well as in physics and the natural world, the equivalent of quantum changes happen. A quantum change is like the change of state of water from ice from solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, gas to liquid or liquid to solid.

The key analogy is that a series of almost-unremarkable quantitative changes accumulate before a nearly-instant change of state happens. A recent example is the change in viewer habits from linear video to on-demand (initially VCR tapes, then DVDs, then streaming) to over-the-top alternatives.

Other examples can be seen in the “long distance” business in the United States. Because of the 1984 breakup of the Bell system, a discrete “long distance” business--separate from the local telephone business-- was created.

Competition--initially from MCI--gradually lead to lower prices overall. Then AT&T launched “Digital One Rate,” which eliminated the price distinction between “local” and “long distance” services, first in the fixed network business and then the mobility business as well.

Over a period of decades, consumer behavior changed, in response. People discovered it made more sense to place outbound “long distance” calls on their mobile phones, since it cost quite a bit less than calling outbound from a fixed network phone, and started calling “long distance” more.

Then, as the price of calling using a mobile also fell, people began abandoning their fixed lines.

The point is that a series of quantitative changes (prices, usage) eventually reach a tipping point, where a qualitative change happens.

The upshot is that we have seen “mobile substitution” happen in waves. First, substitution of mobile for fixed network voice. Then mobile texting as a substitute for voice and email.

Then mobile internet access began to displace fixed network consumption. Now we are seeing quantitative change in entertainment video consumption, from fixed to mobile.

Eventually, those quantitative changes can result in qualitative change, in the same way that earlier transformations have occurred, namely, mobile substitution for fixed.

Though it seems unlikely, based on today’s value proposition (fixed access offers more speed, much-lower prices per bit, higher consumption limits), that value proposition will gradually shift.

We already are seeing the early glimmers of change. Consider the bandwidth issues. Basically, orders of magnitude more usable spectrum, plus lower cell site costs, made possible by new architectures and platforms, accompanied by retail pricing innovations, are narrowing the gap between fixed network internet access and mobile alternatives.

Consider the use of small cells.

In 2017, 62 percent of Verizon’s wireless deployments were small cells. Verizon believes next generation networks will require an order of magnitude (10 times) to two orders of magnitude (100 times) more antenna locations than previous 3G and 4G networks.

AT&T says that the U.S. mobile industry will deploy more small cells in the next three and a half years than the number of macro cells deployed in the last 35 years.

Some argue the industry cannot afford to deploy so many small cells. That ignores the price changes for such cell sites. Where a macrocell might cost $300,000, small cells mountable on light poles, for example, might cost two orders of magnitude less than a macrocell.

Just a few years ago, at lower volume, such small cells might have cost an order of magnitude less than a macrocell, but volume always matters.

So here’s the quantum change possibility: 5G networks will, for the first time, allow consumers to choose a mobile solution for internet access, with no penalty in terms of access speed, usage limits or cost.

“Our research indicates that 5G networks have the potential to leapfrog the capacity of cable operators’ HFC networks,” said Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research principal. “5G technology is a threat to cable operators” because 5G capacity and performance will meet or exceed that provided by a hybrid fiber coax or even optical fiber connection, in most cases.

Will Artificial Intelligence Create Jobs, Displace Jobs, Recreate Jobs? Yes.

Workplace automation is expected to nearly double in the next three years according to a survey by Willis Towers Watson, with complex impact on jobs and job skills.

While survey respondents report that 12 percent of work is currently being done using AI and robotics versus just seven percent three years ago, they anticipate that this figure will rise to 22 percent in the next three years, the survey suggests.

Though 57 percent of respondents say the key goal of automation is to augment human performance and productivity, it is safe to say nobody can presently predict just how AI is going to wind up driving value.

At the moment, 68 percent of respondents say autonomous operations are not the way they use AI. Rather, 70% use AI and robotics somewhat or to a great extent to support humans in completing business processes.

Some 24 percent of respondents say the goal is to reduce costs. Some 15 percent say AI will provide value by helping firms avoid mistakes.

The report suggests it is a myth that workplace automation will have a largely negative impact on workers and jobs.

Instead, the report argues, the new reality is that automation will result in new combinations of work, talent, skill requirements and work relationships involving a range of workers from full-time equivalent employees to contingents.

source: Willis Towers Watson

The report suggests 27 percent of organizations are redesigning jobs today to require more skills as a result of automation. That percentage is likely to increase to 45 percent over the next three years, the report states.

At the same time, 25 percent of firms are redesigning or will redesign jobs to require fewer skills, increasing and over the next three years to 42 percent.

In other words, applied artificial (or augmented intelligence) will cause job losses, job gains and job changes.

Still, some 49 percent of respondents believe they will require fewer employees in the next three years as a result of automation.

WAN Business in Midst of Huge Product Substitution Trend

Product substitution is among the major underlying trends affecting the global telecommunications business.

Substitution of mobile voice for fixed; mobile internet for fixed; streaming video for linear; over the top apps for managed services; text communications instead of voice and private networking for use of public networks all are examples of the substitution trend.

Consider the wide area networks (WAN) business. In the 21st century, WAN traffic has moved steadily in the direction of carriage on private networks owned and operated by major application providers, and away from the public networks offering internet backbone carriage.

By 2016, more than 70 percent of all internet traffic across the Atlantic was carried over private networks, not on public WAN networks. Obviously, that also means no revenue was earned directly by public service providers for carrying that traffic.

On intra-Asian routes, private networks in 2016 carried 60 percent of all traffic. On trans-Pacific routes, private networks carried about 58 percent of traffic.

In other words, far less traffic now moves over public networks than once was the case, a development with important revenue and business model implications. To a growing extent, private networks are displacing WAN services.  

source: TeleGeography

source: TeleGeography

Premises Phone System Sales Fall 8%

A decline in on-premises private branch exchange (PBX) licenses led the global market to decrease eight percent in 2017 from 2016, to $5.7 billion, according to IHS Markit analyst Diane Myers. Total PBX lines were down nine percent year over year in 2017, with cloud alternatives and buyer caution being key issues.

“Just as we see one area begin to improve, it’s offset by slowdowns in specific geographies or market segments,” Myers said. “Many businesses are holding off on upgrades and new purchases, and the move to cloud services is having an impact.

Although enterprise spending is healthy, businesses are giving low priority to telephony upgrades and expansion on the premises side; PBX average per-line revenue was $167 in 2017, a 1 percent uptick from 2016

Enterprises continue to migrate to IP—to pure IP PBXs in particular—but the segment remains smaller than hybrid systems; hybrid IP PBXs represented 64 percent of all lines shipped in 2017

Demand for unified communications (UC) has been erratic over the past four years, but the segment was in positive territory in 2017, with revenue up five percent from the prior year, IHS Markit says. UC adoption also is growing as more functionality is incorporated into PBX packages.

The IHS Markit quarterly enterprise UC and voice equipment report tracks PBX phone systems (TDM, hybrid and pure IP), UC applications and IP phones.

Have Internet Access Prices Really Grown 25% Since 2010?

“Average fees for standalone broadband have increased nearly 25 percent since 2010,” says a study by Parks Associates on subscription TV and internet access. Other studies have noted higher prices for internet access over the past several years.

That is not the same thing as saying “people are paying more for broadband access.” Sticker or suggested prices are one thing; what customers actually pay can be quite another matter.

That is a major reality of the U.S. internet access market, where most consumer mobile or fixed services accounts are purchased as a bundle, offering discounts over separate purchases of each service. That is why actual internet access prices have dropped over the past couple of decades, despite faster speeds and posted rate hikes.

And make no mistake: bundling as a marketing strategy is designed to increase value and cut prices. In other words, effective prices are cut when consumers buy bundles (dual play, triple play, in some cases quadruple play).  

Also, bundling reduces churn. Some note that average spending by consumers on telco or cable services has risen. That is easy to explain. When consumers buy three or four services, or three or four products, even when getting a discount, average account value grows.

That also is an important point. Higher account spending is not necessarily caused by higher component prices, but because consumers are buying more units.

Mobility shows another trend. The other issue is that account spending can climb because more consumers have moved to “bundled” or “multi-user” or “family” plans, which reduces the total number of accounts, while raising average account spending.

In the U.K. market, 68 percent of fixed network consumers report buy bundles, for example. In the U.S. mobile market, most consumers are on multi-user plans, while in the fixed services market, a similar trend prevails.

In fact, when a consumer buys a bundle, it actually is impossible to determine the precise cost of any single component, except to note that the imputed price of each component comes with a discount.

So it might be much more accurate to say that posted retail prices for internet access have grown. The actual prices consumers pay has almost certainly declined.