Global Revenue Now Lead by Mobile

Global telecom services revenue now is lead by mobile services, at 46 percent of total revenue, say researchers at Analysys Mason.

Wired voice revenues now account for 21 percent of total revenues.

Business services account for 14 percent of revenue, while consumer broadband now represents eight percent of total, the firm says.

Video represents about eight percent of total.

Net Neutrality and Free Speech: Issue More Complicated Than You Might Think

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Most of us likely think we understand what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually means. Most of us might be surprised at how complicated the matter has proven to be. It comes as no surprise that there is vociferous debate about what speech is, what a "speaker" is and whose speech is to be protected.

Among the issues jurists and courts have had to wrestle with are "whose" rights of speech are protected. Originally, it was the rather narrow right of political speech, a right possessed by the speaker, that was protected. Over time, though, there have been refinements or travesties, depending on one's point of view.

The classic example is free speech restrictions based on time or place, for example. There is no constitutional fight to "yell fire in a crowded theater," settting off a panic.

Over time, courts have had to grapple with what a "speaker" is. Under the law, a corporation, for example, is a "person." Does a person have the right of free speech?

Over time, the definition of "speech" has widened, and now is a mix of the rights of the speaker and the "rights" of the listener.

To the extent that network neutrality touches off yet another round of debates about how the right of free speech applies, we likely will find serious debate yet again. It's a lot more complicated than most of us might think.

Junction Networks Adds Standard Conferencing Features

Junction Networks has added new features to its business voice service packages at no additional cost, providing users features they have asked for, the company says.

“Our goal is to deliver the most cost effective, business-class phone service for 5-100 users. Now, our customers benefit from more features like conference bridging for 15 people and acd queues while still paying under $20 per user, monthly,” stated Michael Oeth, CEO of Junction Networks.

The "Small Business" OnSIP package, which costs $99.95 a month, now includes 15 voicemail boxes; four attendant menus; four groups; a conference bridge and an ACD (automatic call distributor) queue.

The "Medium Business" package, selling for $199.95 a month, now includes 50 voicemail boxes,
six  attendant menus, six groups, five conference bridges and two ACD queues.

The OnSIP Conference Bridge has also been reduced to only $19.95 per month, with a 15 user limit.

The changes are based on customer feedback, especially demand for conferencing features.

The enhancements are examples of two fundamental trends. First, IP telephony providers continually strive to provide more value to their users, often at no incremental cost, sometimes at low cost.

Second, end user demand for conferencing features illustrates the more-important role one-to-many and many-to-many communications now are assuming in the business world. Though much voice and email communications continues in one-to-one mode, lots of other activity has moved to one-to-many channels. Blog posts, microblogging, social network updates and podcasts, for example, are augmenting traditional one-to-one communications.

Are Fixed and Wireless Broadband Equivalents?

Consumer desire to substitute a wireless broadband connection for a fixed connection remains a question whose answers are yet developing. There are few markets, except Austria, where fixed and wireless broadband really are viewed widely by consumers as equivalent products.

So answer the question "yes" in Austria, where wireless and fixed products are seen as a single market, not two. In most markets, though, especially those with robust fiber to home availability, regulators at least do not see the existence of a single functional market.

In most developing markets, wireless might continue to be the preferred access method, so again there is no functional equivalence between fixed and wireless modes.

But at least in some European markets, consumers are, in fact, starting to choose their broadband connections based on price, rather than on whether the service is delivered using a fixed or mobile networks, says Pyramid Research. For fixed network operators, there likely is no good news in those findings.

First, fixed has to compete with mobility, head to head, and it that fight, mobility offers some value fixed services cannot provide, namely the ability to use the broadband connection outside the home. The other bad news: consumers see so little differentiation they are buying based on price.

Such equivalence is highly unusual. The European Commission, which recently deregulated the broadband access market in Austria precisely because it is so competitive, admits that the Austrian situation is unusual. It is the only European Community market where wireless broadband is widely deemed to be a functional substitute for wired services that price regulation is not needed.

Pyramid likewise argues there is a "strong link" between fixed and mobile broadband adoption. So strong a connection, in fact, that these markets can no longer be looked at in isolation, though today's broadband access market still primarily is a matter of competiton between fixed line providers.

But mobile broadband increasingly will affect the fixed sector, Pyramid believes, especially in markets where overall broadband penetration is low. That includes markets such as Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. In such markets there is only limited opportunity for fixed-mobile broadband bundles, because the services are competitive more than they are complementary.

What remains to be seen, though, is what happens to a highly-competitive market for fixed and wireless broadband when fiber-to-customer services become available. Even the EC says it will continue to monitor the situation and might reimpose regulation if optical fiber is widely deployed. The reason is a belief that, in such a scenario, where wireless competes with fiber-to-home, the products will naturally diverge again.

Wi-Fi Hotspot Market Increasingly Provides "Mobile Offload"

Some proponents once touted Wi-Fi hotspots as an alternative to mobile or out-of-home broadband service. It increasingly look as though the Wi-Fi hotspot is emerging as a way of offloading traffic from the mobile network, as well as a way of supporting mobile devices that do not have data plans.

In-Stat estimates that hotspot usage will increase in 2009 by 47 percent, bringing total worldwide connects to 1.2 billion.

“Mobile operators have become increasingly involved in the hotspot market globally as they assess the potential of hotspots to offload wireless data traffic from overburdened 3G networks," says says Frank Dickson, In-Stat analyst.

Also, mass market adoption of Wi-Fi-enabled smartphones has significantly altered hotspot usage, with these devices accounting for the majority of access sessions in some locations,” he says.

Total worldwide hotspot venues will reach 245,000 locations in 2009, while AT&T is on course to experience 500 percent usage growth, year over year, In-Stat notes.

Communications Key for Smart Grid, Survey Suggests

There's a key reason wireless service providers believe process automation (machines communicating wtih machines) will power the next great wave of wireless growth. It will.

According to a Pacific Crest Mosaic survey, electrical utilities consider two-way communications the most important technology in creating a fully operational "smart grid." About 60 percent of executives say that is the case. Smart meters, by way of contrast, are seen as "most important" by only 15 percent of respondents.

That should come as no surprise. Meters are a basic part of the utility business. So meters, at least for upstream reporting,  as such are widely in use. It is the ability to control the flow of electrons on the grid which is lacking. Local switches for such purposes already are available, allowing utilities to remotely turn on and off home air conditioning units at times of peak load, for example.

Two-way communications designed for power grid use also have been available for some time, allowing utilities to conduct such on-and-off operations. What is needed are more-granular ways of assessing, in real time, the state of the grid and power consumption, so the network of switches can be controlled.

That can be done using either wired or tethered communications. But wireless will appeal because the network already is available.

Why Enterprises Buy Cloud Computing Services

Why are enterprises interested in any sort of cloud computing service? For the same reasons they are interested in just about any other computing or communications tool: they think it will reduce costs and create more value in the information technology investment.

Of course, enterprises don't buy "cloud computing." They buy tools that help them run their businesses.

Email might be an area ripe for a cloud shift, in that regard. It is a necessary function, but a function without compelling strategic advantage.

Typically, necessary but non-strategic functions are the sorts of processes one can think about outsourcing. And it is getting more burdensome to manage email processes, with growing  enterprise regulatory requirements relating to storage of email. The other issue is that email, like most other applications these days, "suffers" from bandwidth creep.

Over time, people are appending larger attachments, for example. Cisco's WebEx Mail service, for example, has full Outlook support. That means users will see no changes, nor will IT departments need to deal with massive training issues and client software updates.

But it isn't the "cloud" that makes the the change interesting. It is the savings in time, labor, money and functionality that will be key. "Cloud computing" as such will be interesting for some enterprises that want to shift capex into opex, that are growing very fast or that are primarily Web based.

For others it might be a way to offload server or computing center chores. But I suspect most users will find they prefer to use a cloud-based application or service because of the value the specific applications represent, because of the consumption or pricing model.