Nine Lies About Work

Half of All U.S. Households are Not Using 25 Mbps Speeds? Impossible

Many complain that Federal Communications Commission data on broadband speeds is incomplete, misleading or wrong. Fair enough. The data will likely never be as good as gathered by Speedtest and other organizations that test actual user sessions, in the concrete. On the other hand, those tests are not “scientific” in the sense of using controlled, weighted samples.

But just a bit of logic suggests many of the complaints about U.S. broadband speeds cannot be correct, either.

Roughly 10 percent of U.S. households are in rural areas, the places where it is most expensive to install fast fixed network internet access facilities, and where the greatest speed gaps--compared to urban areas--almost certainly continue to exist.

In its own work with TV white spaces, Microsoft has targeted perhaps  two million people, or roughly a million households, that have no fixed network internet access. That assumes there are two people living in a typical household, which is below the U.S. average of roughly 2.3 to 2.5 per household.

Recall that the definition of broadband is 25 Mbps downstream. Microsoft has argued that 20 million people (about 10 million homes) or perhaps eight percent of the population (perhaps four percent of homes) cannot get such speeds from any fixed network service provider.

Ignoring for the moment access at such speeds by satellite, fixed wireless or mobile, that is about the dimensions of the potential rural broadband problem. Perhaps nobody would dispute a potential speed gap for those 10 million or so homes.

But Microsoft claims about half of U.S. residents cannot get 25 Mbps service. That is hard to believe. There simply are not enough rural households to create a gap that large when urban and suburban areas, where 92 percent of people live, have access to speeds far higher than 25 Mbps.

In 2018, U.S. fixed internet service provider speeds averaged 96 Mbps downstream, according to Speedtest.

source: Speedtest

We can freely admit that the FCC data is based on sampling and inferences from that reported data. But we should at least be skeptical, and apply some tests of sanity, when claims of the magnitude of the speed gaps are made. But Ookla’s data is likely quite representative of internet users.

Consider the incentive to test a connection speed. What sort of user is most likely to do so, and when? In my own experience, people test when they suspect a problem, not because they simply want to enjoy how fast their connections are. If anything, the Ookla tests should overemphasize tests by people who suspect they have a problem (slow router, for example).

Personally, I only test when I think I have a problem.

It simply is not mathematically possible for half of U.S. homes to be using less than 25 Mbps when the number of homes in that range are assumed to be rural households, which represent less than 10 percent of total homes.

Even if 100 percent of rural homes could not buy 25 Mbps service, such locations only represent eight percent or so of all locations.

When average speeds are above 100 Mbps nationwide, it is not reasonable to conclude that those eight percent of locations--even if all were using connections slower than 25 Mbps--could represent half of all households.

Microsoft’s claims seem impossible to believe, even if we all agree the FCC data is incomplete or even wrong.

TVision Home by T-Mobile

T-Mobile US is getting into the linear TV subscription business. 

T-Mobile US Launches TVision Home

T-Mobile US has introduced “TVision Home,” its over the top linear video service for fixed network customers, in eight U.S. markets, apparently where its Layer 3 networks already had been available.

T-Mobile US also announced it will launch nationwide streaming services later in 2019, presumably based on use of T-Mobile’s own 5G network as well as an OTT app.

TVision Home 275-plus available channels and over 35,000 on-demand movies and shows. On-screen social content, a personalized home screen and DVR for each user, smart speaker voice control with Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant, and access to security cameras are part of the service.

TVision Home launches with apps for Pandora, iHeartRadio, XUMO, CuriosityStream, Toon Goggles and HSN.

There also is a bit of regulatory arbitrage. Fixed network service providers are required to pay local fees and taxes that TVision Home is not liable for. That allows it to sell a service costing less than cable or telco suppliers.

The implications are clear enough. T-Mobile US is getting into the linear video business, to compete with cable TV operators and telcos. At the same time, it is getting into the live TV streaming business (linear, rather than on-demand), with on-demand video services such as Netflix also accessible as part of the app.

The bigger question is whether 5G mobile TV, in this form, also will begin to show consumer appetite for linear video consumed on mobile devices. Mobile service providers have offered the ability to listen to broadcast radio and TV for decades, but with no real traction. The shift to the full palette of managed video channels is new, though.

Among the questions is how some consumers might start to use the service, casting to TVs, for example.

ISPs are Not the Big Internet Problem

Among the disingenuous arguments raised about network neutrality is that it somehow “saves internet freedom.” It does not. The heart of the network neutrality argument is that internet service providers should be barred from offering any quality of service features for consumer internet access services, on the theory that any other policy would allow ISPs to degrade service on their networks, while creating “value added” services that run faster.

Ignore for the moment that fixed network speeds increased about 38 percent in 2018 alone; that with 5G delivering an order of magnitude faster speeds; with new low earth orbit satellite constellations launching; with new ways to deploy fast fixed wireless access networks; with the number of ISPs actually growing; and that you would be extremely hard pressed to find any actual instances of ISPs deliberately building “crappy” networks that run slow, just so they can try and upsell.

Ignore the coming era of edge computing that will make network responsiveness even higher. Ignore Amazon’s entry into the ISP business; Google’s existing operations and Facebook’s satellite and other ISP operations.

Every public policy has private interest implications. Net neutrality essentially protects Google, Facebook and others from potential underlying cost pressures, even as all major app providers themselves pay to “speed up” their own services, using content delivery networks.

All those firms win when “everybody” has internet access, of good quality and low price. Net neutrality rules are viewed as ways to promote such outcomes. U.S. regulators never have allowed ISPs to block or degrade consumer internet access to all lawful applications, period.

So net neutrality cannot be about preserving consumer access to lawful applications, despite the breathless rhetoric. A fair assessment would be that the danger to consumer welfare comes from the content and application sphere these days: privacy violations; excessive sales of user data; biased filtering policies; selective censorship and so forth. None of those ailments are caused by ISPs.

Internet access keeps getting better, and rapidly. The era of 5G is going to provide extraordinary low latency and quality bandwidth at prices that are low, and dropping, in terms of price per bit and even often in real terms (adjusted both for inflation and different consumer choices).

IoT Markets are Hard to Quanify with Any Precision

Quantifying the size of edge computing or internet of things markets is difficult, if in fact both have both horizontal capability (general purpose use cases) as well as vertical (within specific industry vertical) implications.

Most firms--even those focusing on IoT--will not likely derive most of their revenue from specific edge or IoT sales. When “everybody” can claim to be, and in fact might be, a participant in the broad ecosystem, it also is nearly impossible to specify the specific value or revenue upside. Virtually all the major cloud suppliers, mobile and fixed connectivity providers, end user appliance and general-purpose computing firms can claim to have some role.

That means virtually every large enterprise software or solution provider, every large ISP, every large computing solutions suppliers, many device and component suppliers and system integrators can claim to have a role.

Security, robotics, connectivity services, chipsets, databases, devices, enterprise software, consulting and implementation services, vertical industry software suppliers, server suppliers, analytics, embedded computing suppliers all would have plausible roles.

Consider just industrial IoT, which might include firms such as DHL, Hitachi, Huawei, SAP, GE, Rolls Royce, Dell, ARM, Bosch, Cisco, AWS, AT&T, Fujitsu, Deutsche Telecom, Telefonica, Google, HPE, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Qualcomm, Salesforce, Samsung, Sierra Wireless and PC-Tel, as well as any firm that competes with these firms.

Siemens, ABB, Honeywell, Schneider Electric, ON Semiconductors, Micron, Broadcom, Analog Devices, NXP, Texas Instruments, Gemalto, RSA, Symantec, Kaspersky, Palo Alto Networks, ThingWorx, Sigfox, Ingenu, Accenture, Fujitsu, Tata, Infosys, Tech Mahindra, Fanuc, Kuka, Boston Dynamics, Zebra and ProGlove also are among firms with possible roles to play.

Verizon, Fortinet, Samsara, Eaton, SonicWall, Johnson Controls, Vertiv and Honeywell are some of the other names any industrial IoT potential participants list would tend to include.

PTC, IGEL, Red Hat, Senet, Cambium, Lenovo, National Instruments, Particle, Rigado, Roambee, Armis, Claroty, Cradlepoint, ForeScout, Trend Micro, VDOO, Xage Security, Zingbox, Falkonry, Foghorn Systems, IoTium, KMC Controls and Seeq might also be names with industrial IoT credibility.

But few of those firms will be able to generate specific industrial IoT revenue that moves the needle much on overall firm revenues.

And much the same can be said for potential suppliers in any other vertical market IoT realm. As a general theme, IoT is going to be significant. But specific forecasts will be difficult.

Can 5G Providers Sell QoS?

Can 5G service providers charge a premium for low-latency performance guarantees, when the stated latency parameters--best effort--are already so low? That is a question that also might be asked in other ways.

Will 5G best effort service be good enough, latency-wise and bandwidth, to obviate the need for any additional quality of service features to preserve low latency and bandwidth?

Is there a market for quality of service when delivered bandwidth rates are so high, and latency performance so much better than 4G? In a broader sense, as network performance keeps getting better on both latency and bandwidth dimensions, can connectivity providers actually sell customers on QoS-assured services?

Also, some would argue, it becomes problematic to try and maintain QoS packets are encrypted at the edge. A service provider cannot prioritize what it cannot see. And that is the growing trend as most traffic gets encrypted.  

By about 2020, estimates Openwave Mobility, fully 80 percent of all internet traffic will be encrypted. In 2017, more than 70 percent of all traffic is encrypted.

The other change is the emergence of edge computing for latency-sensitive applications. We can assume that the whole point of edge computing is to provide a level of quality assurance that cannot otherwise be obtained.

As content delivery networks provide such assurances to enterprises and content suppliers for a fee, so it is likely that edge computing networks or other networks relying on network slicing to maintain low-latency performance will be sold as a service to enterprises who want that latency protection.

Such deals do not violate network neutrality rules, which do not apply to business services such as content delivery networks. So, ultimately, between encryption, network slicing, edge computing and CDNS, there might actually not be much of a market for consumer services featuring QoS.

Best-effort-only never has been part of the vision for next-generation networks, whatever might have been proposed for the public internet. According to the International Telecommunications Union, “a Next Generation Network (NGN) is a packet-based network able to provide services including Telecommunication Services and able to make use of multiple broadband, QoS-enabled transport technologies and in which service-related functions are independent from underlying transport-related technologies.”