Biggest Impact of Gigabit is Sales of Lower Speed Services, AT&T Finds

Success-based deployment of capital is one way access providers try and match incremental capital investment to incremental revenue. That is why firms from Google Fiber to AT&T build gigabit networks in neighborhoods, not whole cities; where demand for gigabit services and faster speeds is higher than average.

In its latest statements about take rates where it is building its fiber-to-home networks, AT&T suggests it is finding what other internet service providers have tended to find, when offering a range of speeds. Among the primary effects of launching gigabit service is that it spurs buying of services at lower speeds (40 Mbps, 100 Mbps, for example).

“After we launch our 100-percent fiber network in the new market, we're seeing about half of the new broadband customers buying speeds of 100 megabits per second or higher with 30 percent of the customers taking a gig,” says John Stephens, AT&T CFO.

In other words, 70 percent of customers buy speeds other than a gigabit per second, when it is possible for them to buy a gigabit access service.

"Free" is a Powerful Price Point

“Free” is a powerful price point, as shown by mobile account additions in India in October 2016, where Reliance Jio is grabbling most of the account growth in the whole market. It is a reasonable question how many of those customers--which seem to include a goodly number of mobile customers who added Reliance Jio as a secondary provider--will keep those accounts once they have to start paying for service.

Reliance Jio is going to make it very attractive to switch, continuing to offer very low prices, once the promotional pricing period ends in March 2017.

source: TRAI

Some Telecom "Moats" Might Actually Exist

An installed base of internet access customers is not necessarily a “moat” protecting an internet service provider from losing customers, but it really helps. So, apparently, do service bundles that offer more value and bigger discounts.

In mature telecom markets, customers simply do not switch providers all that often.

According to a 2014 study by Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, just eight percent of adults fixed network voice customers in the last 12 months. About nine percent of broadband access customers switched in the last year.

Just six percent of mobile customers switched providers over 12 months, while just five percent switched their subscription TV provider over the same time frame.

What that means, for any mobile service provider in a mature market is that only about one half of one percent of current customers chose another provider in any given month.

Likewise, Parks Associates consumer data show that almost 50 percent of U.S. mobile phone service customers did not change providers over the last 10 years. In other words, fully half the customer base virtually never changes providers, meaning that all switching behavior is concentrated on just half the total subscriber base.

According to Parks Associates, about 25 percent of respondents changed service providers only once in 10 years.

According to a 2016 study by U.K. comparison site uSwitch, only 11 percent of internet access customers switched providers over the last year.

Some 22 percent of customers report they have not changed providers in over five years, while 35 percent have never switched providers.

That one-year level of  churn is roughly the same percentage of U.S. mobile customers who switch from AT&T or Verizon Wireless over a year’s time as well, providing more evidence that, in a mature market, customer defections are less common than most might believe.

Also, most studies suggest that customers buying bundles churn less often, as well.

In the case of fixed internet access, it appears consumers also resist switching providers because they do not want an interruption of service while new providers install the new service.

Fully 35 percent of U.K. internet users who’ve experienced a period of internet access when they tried moving providers in the past say the thought of being without internet has put them off doing it again, according to uSwitch.com.

Of the 55 percent of respondents  who reported being without broadband between providers, the average length of downtime is 1.4 days. But 10 percent reported downtime of one to two weeks without service, while six percent had to wait longer than three weeks.

Internet users in London wait an average of 2.3 days for new service to start.

How Much Connection Revenue Will IoT Drive?

By 2020, nearly two billion devices with mobile connections capability, 2.7 billion devices that can connect to one or another low-power communications network and 3.3 billion devices with Wi-Fi capability will be shipped, or more than eight billion total devices in one year, according to IHS Markit.

If correct, and if all those devices are connected to networks, then perhaps 4.7 billion devices will likely represent new “public” potential network connections. The 3.3 billion Wi-Fi connected devices will mostly use existing public network connections.

Public network revenue will feature lower average revenue per device than public telecom network services providers have been used to when serving “humans,” however. If a mobile phone account might represent roughly $40 per device in monthly revenue, an IoT device might represent about $1 or $2 a month or less, depending on the amount of data any particular sensor has to transmit, over a month’s time.

That is one important reason why larger tier-one telcos will be focusing on IoT systems, services and platforms, not simply connectivity. Most of the revenue will be in devices, software and applications, not connectivity.  

source: IHS Markit

source: Cisco

source: Jasper.com

Telecom Failure Within 10 Years is Possible if Carriers "Do Nothing"

The telecom industry is on course to becoming “unrecognizable” within 10 years in a “do nothing” scenario, say researchers at McKinsey. That might seem alarmist. It is not, McKinsey seems to argue.

Over the past five years, the telecom business has entered a period of slow decline, with revenue growth down from 4.5 percent to four percent, EBITDA margins down from 25 percent to 17 percent, and cash-flow margins down from 15.6 percent to eight  percent, McKinsey says.

Just a few years ago, over-the-top messaging represented nine percent of revenue, OTT fixed voice 11 percent and OTT mobile voice two percent.

Forecast alternatives prepared by McKinsey & Company suggest that, in the most aggressive scenario, OTT messaging could be 60 percent share, OTT voice could be 50 percent of fixed voice revenue and 25 percent of mobile voice revenue.

In the “best” outcome, OTT messaging share of revenue would be 40 percent, share of fixed network voice 25 percent and mobile voice share could be seven percent of total.

Growth will continue globally, in newer markets. An additional billion middle-tier customers will likely be added, mainly in emerging markets, by 2025. But  revenue growth and profit margins will be low, McKinsey says.

Globally, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for traditional telcos is estimated at only 0.7 percent through 2020. For many telcos, largely in developed markets, the outlook is worse.

Telcos in Western Europe and in Central and Eastern Europe are facing –1.5 and –1.3 percent average growth, respectively, over the next four years, while those in North America are expected to barely tread water with growth at only about 0.3 percent, McKinsey says.

So twin challenges lie ahead: to “create a super slim and efficient core business” and then “to strategically define and aggressively pursue growth areas.” That is why internet of things, machine-to-machine services and even artificial intelligence or deep machine learning will be so important: they are among the key ways to find growth and also run the core business efficiently.

Network technologies need to become IT-centric and more software driven, allowing service providers to reduce baseline costs by 30 to 70 percent. So do not be surprised if carrier capital investment declines, even as next-generation networks are built. The new networks will cost more than the older networks, so the dramatic cost savings will be necessary.

source: McKinsey

source: McKinsey

Sure, AT&T and Verizon are "Unfocused" on Mobile; They Have to Be

Some argue that T-Mobile US is focused; AT&T and Verizon unfocused, where it comes to mobile services, and that explains why T-Mobile US is gaining share, while AT&T and Verizon struggle to add net new subscribers.

As with all observations, there is some grain of truth. T-Mobile US is a mobile-only operator attacking the  market to gain share, and does not have to worry about its future in the same way as AT&T and Verizon do, for one key reason.

T-Mobile US is a strategic seller, while AT&T and Verizon are strategic buyers. That has implications. T-Mobile US only has to add accounts and grow market share. It essentially knows it will eventually be acquired; it only does not know, yet, who the buyer will be.

Even profitability, and the ability to pay dividends, is not an issue for T-Mobile US: growing market share and cash flow are the actual objectives.

AT&T and Verizon must think and act seriously about growing new products and lines of business beyond mobility, as they plan to be in business long after T-Mobile US has been acquired.

That necessarily means working hard on growing internet of things, connected car, video and international businesses, mobile advertising and content services.

So, yes, in some sense T-Mobile US really is more focused. It can do so because mobile is its only business, and a business it intends to sell, someday. Growth, more than profits, is the goal.

AT&T and Verizon must focus on growth outside their legacy fixed and mobile businesses, to survive a shift in the business that T-Mobile US will not survive.

Video is a Huge Deal, for Telcos and Cable

The most-important fixed network bundle for U.S. consumers might be the dual-play “internet access plus linear video” package. There are several reasons. TV has the highest average revenue, and therefore the greatest impact on potential service provider cash flow.

Internet access arguably is the foundation service; the single most-important single service sold by any access provider, and arguably is the service with the highest profit margin for cable TV providers.

Comcast, for example, earns perhaps 46 percent of total revenue in its cable communications segment from video, while internet access contributes 27 percent. Voice represents just eight percent of revenue.

For telcos, the math is different, but equally strategic. Even when telco video services represented only five percent market share in video entertainment, video drove 60 percent of net telco account additions.

source: Market Realist

source: McKinsey