Thursday, March 12, 2020

Spectrum Sharing, Refarming, New Spectrum Supporting 5G Rollout

Traditionally, when mobile operators launch a new next-generation network, several capacity approaches are common. Virtually every next-generation mobile network has launched using new spectrum bands. Mobile operators also recover spectrum from older networks seeing less usage. 

Some new tools also are available. Spectrum sharing now is feasible, in several forms. One form is to aggregate licensed and unlicensed spectrum, typically mobile and Wi-Fi. Another new tool is allowing shared use of already-licensed spectrum, such as Citizens Broadband Radio Service. 

There also are ways to use existing network assets to support the next-generation service. 

Ericsson’s dynamic spectrum sharing solution, for example, now is commercially available, allowing mobile operators to deliver both 4G and 5G  within the same spectrum, using the same radio and the same band, with capacity allocated dynamically, not in a static way.

In principle, DSS allows mobile operators using Ericsson networks to deploy 5G anywhere 4G radio infrastructure exists, by means of a software upgrade. 
That has obvious benefits for a quick upgrade to 5G with at least some capital investment savings, albeit with the need to preserve 4G user experience. 
On the other hand, AT&T also is partially using the traditional tool of spectrum repurposing or refarming, shifting perhaps 10 MHz of spectrum away from 4G and instead supporting 5G. 
Verizon plans to shut down its 3G network by the end of 2020, while AT&T plans to do so by 2023. Those resources then will be refarmed and used to support 5G.

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

FDA Finds No Adverse Health Effects on Humans from Cell Phones

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration FDA has completed an updated radiofrequency (RF) exposure risk analysis based on relevant peer-reviewed in vivo (animal) and epidemiological studies published from January 1, 2008 to August 1, 2018 for in vivo studies, and from January 1, 2008 to May 8, 2018 for epidemiological studies. 

That includes 125 articles and 70 epidemiological studies, for a total of about 195 data points. 

The study concludes “there are no quantifiable adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current cell phone exposure limits.”

“There is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis,” the report says.

Monday, March 9, 2020

Cable Companies Have Lead the U.S. Internet Access Market for 3 Decades

The U.S. fixed network internet access market is somewhat unusual in that cable TV companies absolutely dominate the installed base and market share gains. Of 101,222,628 total subscriptions, cable operators have 69 percent of the installed base, and in 2018 had 3,144,657  of 2,525,052 total net account additions. 

Since telcos lost nearly 620,000 accounts, cable operators had more than 100 percent of all the net additions. 

That leadership of the fixed network internet access market by cable operators has grown for about three decades. 

Cable Companies
Subscribers, 4Q 2019
Net Adds
Comcast
28,629,000
1,407,000
Charter
26,664,000
1,405,000
Cox*
5,170,000
110,000
Altice
4,187,300
71,900
Mediacom
1,328,000
64,000
WOW (WideOpenWest)
781,500
21,900
Cable One**
773,000
39,000
Atlantic Broadband
451,463
25,857
Total
67,984,263
3,144,657


AT&T
15,389,000
(312,000)
Verizon
6,956,000
(5,000)
CenturyLink
4,678,000
(134,000)
Frontier^
3,500,000
(235,000)
Windstream
1,049,300
28,300
Consolidated
784,165
5,195
TDS
455,200
31,800
Cincinnati Bell
426,700
1,100
Total
33,238,365
(619,605)


Those statistics suggest why 5G fixed wireless access might be so important: it could be the only way telcos actually halt the erosion of market share, and possibly become competitive again in internet access. 

That would presumably also allow T-Mobile to enter the market for the first time. 

Is Google Mobile Edge Cloud Another Dumb Pipe Outcome?

Google Cloud says it is helping telecommunications companies monetize 5G as a business services platform, in part by prototyping and developing edge computing use cases in retail, manufacturing and transportation. 

The Global Mobile Edge Cloud program aims to create a portfolio and marketplace of 5G solutions built jointly with telecommunications companies; an open cloud platform for developing these network-centric applications; and a global distributed edge for optimally deploying these solutions, Google Cloud says.

A collaboration with AT&T is part of that effort, where AT&T supplies the network while Google Cloud supplies the computing functions. 

That might strike you as yet another instance of telcos supplying connectivity (dumb pipe) while somebody else supplies the applications. Realists might say that is about as good as it gets, in many cases.

A few tier-one service providers might hope to create platforms or services and applications for vertical markets. Already, one can see that in prior efforts to diversify into applications and platforms. Between 2017 and 2018, for example, AT&T significantly added non-telecom revenues. 


That is crucially important for connectivity providers in developed markets, as organic growth for connectivity services is low to negative. 

“For many operators, particularly those in developed markets, non telecoms services are the only source of growth,” GSMA Intelligence says. In other words, moving “up the stack” or “across the ecosystem” might well be the only driver of significant revenue growth. 

That is a somewhat contentious statement, as financial analysts virtually always prefer that connectivity providers “stick to their knitting” and perceived core competencies, and avoid venturing further afield into new lines of business outside the core. But in a slow-growth to no-growth environment, that could very well lead to organizational decline. 

“The biggest challenge will be finding the right balance between defending core operations and exploring opportunities beyond the core,” GSMA Intelligence argues. That is an ever-present challenge for virtually all organizations facing pressure on their core revenue models. The overwhelming tendency is to spend energy and resources defending the existing business, even if that means the future is neglected. 

The Google Cloud initiative might be a reasonable compromise. It allows mobile service providers to create new value for apps and use cases that require use of 5G. And to the extent that 5G is the natural successor to 4G, it defends the legacy revenue stream (mobile service and mobile internet access). 

Still, neglecting the “up the stack or across the ecosystem” initiatives could be challenging. In 2025, for example, GSMA Intelligence predicts that connectivity services will represent about five percent of total revenues for internet of things spending. Fully 67 percent will be generated by applications, platforms and services, while 28 percent will be created by professional services. 



Sunday, March 8, 2020

The Difference 5 Years Makes: Google Goes from Threat to Partner

Once upon a time, many top telco executives ranked Google as a bigger threat than other telcos. A 2015 survey of 101 service providers sponsored by Openet Telecom, including respondents from every region, found “over the top” application providers were viewed as the most-significant competitors

In fact,  app providers were deemed bigger threats than other mobile operators, mobile virtual network operators, Wi-Fi first MVNOs, fixed network operators or free Wi-Fi providers. 

These days, many in the telco ecosystem are partnering with Google, in the form of Google Cloud. 

Now Google Cloud has its Global Mobile Edge Cloud (GMEC), which will deliver a portfolio and marketplace of 5G solutions built jointly with telecommunications companies; an open cloud platform for developing these network-centric applications; and a global distributed edge for optimally deploying these solutions. AT&T already is working with GMEC. 

In some indirect ways, suppliers of software infrastructure for telcos are using Google Cloud as the platform for services supplied to telco customers. Netcracker Technology, for example, deploys its entire digital BSS/OSS and orchestration stack on Google Cloud. 

In part, that is because Google Cloud is pitching its platform to the telco ecosystem. Anthos, for example, is Google Cloud’s open application platform for telecommunications firms, enabling them to deploy, manage, and optimize their applications, whether they are on-premise or in the cloud, to deliver its suite of products across multiple private and public clouds, on-premise environments, and at the network edge.

Amdocs, for its part, now uses Google Cloud to deliver Amdocs’ OSS and BSS systems. 

Saturday, March 7, 2020

The Most-Important Math Function for Device, App, Network Businesses

The sigmoid function arguably is among the most-important mathematical expressions one ever encounters in the telecom, application and device businesses. It applies to business strategy overall, new product development, strategy for legacy businesses, customer adoption rates, marketing messages and  capital deployment, for example. 

The sigmoid function applies to startups as well as incumbents; software and hardware; products and services; new and legacy lines of business. Describing a specific relation between sets, the sigmoid function also is required whenever neural networks are created. 

The concept has been applied to technology adoption in the notion of crossing the chasm of value any technology represents for different users. Mainstream users have different values than early adopters, so value propositions must be adjusted as any new technology product exhausts the market of early adopters. Early adopters can tolerate bugs, workarounds or incomplete on-boarding and support experiences. They tend to be price insensitive. 

Mainstream users typically require fully-developed customer support, costs that match value and a developed ecosystem (they do not want to write their own apps). Scale is not a huge issue early on, since the number of customers is limited. All that changes with adoption by the mass market, when support at scale is necessary. 

The S curve also is embedded into the concept of the product life cycle or new product development. Simply put, every product eventually exhausts its market. That further implies a constant need for new product development, which must necessarily begin before the succeeding product has reached its peak adoption level, and before that product begins its decline. 


Among the important takeaways is that technology or product adoption is logarithmic, not linear. What happens early in technology or product availability is quite different from what happens when any technology or product is demanded by the mass market. 

Product attributes and the ecosystem required are highly disparate for early adopters, compared to mass market customers in the growth phase, which is different from attributes required to attract late adopters. 

So how does this apply to 5G?

We’ve already started to hear stories about how consumers or enterprises are “disappointed” with 5G, even though 5G availability is still rolling out, even though there are different flavors of 5G with different strengths and weaknesses (because coverage and capacity, as always, are trade-offs). 

It is worth recalling that it took 10 years--in Europe--for 3G to reach adoption levels ranging from 30 percent to 60 percent. Take rates for 4G took a decade to reach 80 percent, and about five years to reach 50 percent adoption. 

If 5G is close to 4G in value, it will be about another five years before half of consumers actually buy the service. That is a good illustration of the S curve adoption model, something that applies to new services of all types, provided by incumbents or startups. 
As applied to 5G, it is easy to understand why early mixed reviews are understandable. The biggest performance boosts come with millimeter wave service that is going to take some time to supply, meaning few users actually have sustained use of that form of 5G. 

The other issue is the “obvious experience advantage” of 5G over 4G, compared to the difference in experience between 4G and 3G. Many do not recall, or did not experience the transition from 3G to 4G. Simply put, 4G brought immediate and obvious improvements in user experience of using the web from a mobile device, where 3G experience was painful.

That will not generally be the case for the transition from 4G to 5G. There are almost no use cases consumers will generally encounter or desire where 5G speed, capacity or latency advantages translate immediately into better experience. 

In other words, 4G service quality is quite good, compared to 3G experience when 4G launched. In fact, many users on low-band networks might not always even detect a significant difference in experience. 

As we already have encountered with fixed network performance, gigabit per second speeds--compared to services offering 100 Mbps to 200 Mbps--actually do not yield tangible experience benefits for any single user, though useful for multi-user households where simultaneous 4K streaming happens, lots of simultaneous gaming occurs or when multiple users are uploading lots of video content. 

It can be argued that 5G launches represent that same sort of situation: the capacious millimeter wave services cannot generally provide experience gains because 4G suffices (for the moment). 

That is bound to lead to some user disillusionment. 

The story can be quite different for a mobile service provider, deploying 5G in part for other reasons. As end user bandwidth demand continues to grow, there comes a point where 4G just runs out of room for improvement. 

That matters because cost per bit matters. Basically, mobile operators have to keep supplying more bandwidth to end users, but at about the same retail prices. There is some room for improvements at the margin, but the trend for decades has been that consumer prices have remained the same, or fallen, while the supply of bandwidth has increases, in some cases, at about the rate one would expect from Moore’s Law (doubling about every 18 months to 24 months). 

So end user experience “at the moment” is not the big issue. Supporting user experience in a few years, when the 4G network cannot do so at lower cost, is the big issue for a bandwidth supplier. 

Eventually, consumer benefits will be seen. But even so, lower cost per delivered bit would be reason enough for mobile operators to move to 5G now, before the next capacity crunch hits.

The ultimate creation of new services, apps and use cases, some of which will provide direct and indirect revenue, also are important. But the move to 5G is supported--one can argue--strictly by the need to deliver internet bandwidth at far lower cost. 

Latency and capacity improvements are nice, and have happened with each succeeding digital generation. And those improvements have lead directly to new use cases and value creation. Still, the bottom line is that mobile networks must drive down the costs of supplying internet access. 5G does that.

Directv-Dish Merger Fails

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