Showing posts with label fixed broadband. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fixed broadband. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

More Regulation Needed to Spur Broadband Competition? Really?


The U.S. Federal Communications Commission should consider regulations for broadband providers in an effort to increase competition, says Lawrence Strickling, National Telecommunications and Information Administrationassistant secretary, as reported by IDG News Service.

"We urge the Commission to examine what in many areas of the country is at best a duopoly market and to consider what, if any, level of regulation may be appropriate to govern the behavior of duopolists," Strickling says.

With all due respect for Strickling, who is a smart, experienced regulatory type who knows the terrain, and without disagreeing in full with the full content of his filing on behalf of NTIA, the notion that competition somehow is so stunted that new regulatiions are required likely would lead to greater harm, despite its good intentions.

Here's the argument. Consider, if you will, any large industry with critical implications for the entire U.S. economy. Now consider the following mandate: "you will be forced to replace 50 percent of your entire revenue in 10 years."

"During that time, for a variety of reasons, incumbents will be forced to surrender significant market share to competitors, so that in addition to replacing half of the industry's revenue, it also will have to do so with dramatically fewer customers."

"After that, in another decade, the industry will be required to replace, again, another 50 percent of its revenue. All together, the industry will required to relinquish at least 30 percent of its market share, in some cases as much as half, and also will be required to replace nearly 100 percent of its revenue, including the main drivers of its profitability."

Does that sound like the sort of industry that desperately needs additional competition? Really?

Nor is the argument theoretical. Over a 10-year period between 1997 and 2007, the U.S. telephone industry was so beset with new technology and competition that almost precisly half of its revenue (long distance), the revenue driver that provided nearly all its actual profit, was lost.

The good news is that the revenue was replaced by wireless voice. Then, because of the Internet, cable company entry into voice and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, market share began to wither. That, after all, is the point of deregulation: incumbents are supposed to lose market share to competitors.

Now we have the second decade's project, when mobile voice revenues similarly will have to be replaced, in turn, as IP-based voice undermines the high-margin voice services that have been the mainstay of the mobile business.

If you follow the telecom industry as a financial matter, you know that service providers have maintained their profitability only partly by growing topline revenues. They also have been downsizing workforces and slashing operating costs.

If you talk to ex-employees of the telecom industry, they will tell you the industry seems no longer to be a "growth" industry. That's why millions of people who used to work in telecom no longer do so.

So what about the other big incumbent industry, cable TV operators. As you clearly can see, and can read about nearly every day, there are huge questions about the future business model for what used to be known as "cable TV." Many observers already predict that such services will move to Internet delivery, weakening or destroying the profitability of the U.S. cable industry.

Industry executives, no dummies they, already have moved into consumer voice and data communications, and now are ramping up their assault on business communications. Why? They are going in reverse for the core video business.

Imposing regulatory burdens on incumbents--either telco or cable--that are losing their core revenue drivers on such a scale might not be wise. Few industries would survive back-to-back decades where the core revenue drivers must be replaced by "something else."

Imagine the U.S. Treasury being asked to replace virtually 100 percent of its revenue with "something else" in about 20 years. Imagine virtually any other industry being asked to do the same.

The point is that industries asked to confront such challenges and surmount them are not typically the sort of industries that need to have additional serious obstacles placed in their way.

Granted, they are niche suppliers, but Strickling also is well aware there are two satellite broadband providers battling for customers, plus five mobile broadband providers, and then hundreds of independent providers providing terrestrial fixed wireless access or packaging wholesale capacity to provide retail services.

Granted, only cable, satellite, telcos and several mobile providers have anything like ubiquitous footprints, but that is a function of the capital intensity of the business. Most markets will not support more than several suppliers in either fixed or wireless segments of the business.

One can argue there is not more facilities-based competition because regulation is inadequate, or one can argue investment capital no longer can be raised to build a third ubiquitous wired network.

The point is that wired network scarcity might be a functional of rational assessments of likely payback. Cable TV franchises are not a monopoly in any U.S. community. But only rarely have third providers other than the cable TV or incumbent phone companies attempted to build city-wide third networks. Regulatory barriers are not the issue: capital and business potential are the problems.

Also I would grant that mobile broadband is not a full product substitute for fixed broadband. But where we might be in five to 10 years cannot yet be ascertained. And we certainly do not want to make the same mistake we made last time.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major revamping of U.S. telecom regulation since 1934, was supposed to shake up the sleepy phone business. But the Telecom Act of 1996 occurred just as landline voice was fading, and the Internet was rising.

If you wonder why virtually every human being with a long enough memory would say their access to applications, services, features and reasonable prices is much better now than before the Telecom Act of 1996, even assuming it has completely failed, the answer is that the technology and the market moved too fast for regulators to keep up.

The Telecom Act tried to remedy a problem that fast is becoming irrelevant: namely competition for voice services. In fact, voice services rapidly are becoming largely irrelevant, or marginal, as the key revenue drivers for most providers in the business.

Yes, there are only a few ubiquitous wired or wireless networks able to provider broadband. But that might be a function of the capital required to build such networks, the nature of payback in a fiercely-competitive market and a shift of potential revenue away from "network access" suppliers and towards application providers.

It always sounds good to call for more competition. Sometimes it even is the right thing to do. But there are other times when markets actually cannot support much more competition than already exists. Two to three fixed broadband networks in a market, plus two satellite broadband providers, plus four to five mobile providers, plus many smaller fixed wireless or reseller providers does not sound much like a "market" that needs to stimulate more competition.

There's another line of reasoning one might take, but would make for a very-long post. That argument would be that, judged simply on its own merits, the availability and quality of broadband services, in a continent-sized country such as the United States, with its varigated population density, is about what one would expect.

Even proponents of better broadband service in the United States are beginning to recognize that "availability" is not the problem: "demand" for the product is the key issue.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Is Broadband "Satisfaction" Directly Related to "Bundle" Savings?


The conventional wisdom is that high-speed broadband access is becoming a commodity bought by consumers primarily on the basis of speed and price.

A recent survey by Parks Associates also showed that there is not all that much difference between consumer satisfaction with any of the broadband network types.

With cable modem service and digital subscriber line as the baseline, consumers said they were a bit more happy with fiber to the home, and a bit less happy with either satellite broadband or fixed wireless broadband.

So the differences are a matter of performance, or speed or price, right? Well, maybe, and maybe not.

The Parks Associates survey also found that consumers were more satisfied with any broadband service purchased as part of a bundle, less happy when broadband was purchased a la carte. Since the primary end user benefit from buying any bundle is the cost savings, one might conclude that consumer satisfaction has less to do with the technical parameters (speed and reliability) and mostly to do with "saving money."

Since satellite broadband and fixed wireless services rarely are purchased as part of a multi-service bundle, that fact alone would explain lower satisfaction with either satellite or fixed wireless services.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

TowerStream: 8 Mbps for $1,000 a Month

Wireless has been the perennial favorite for believers in facilities-based access competition to the entrenched telephone and cable companies. Some 25 years ago, proponents argued that Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Systems (MMDS) based on 2.5 GHz spectrum were going to be the way new video entertainment providers would gain a foothold.

That effort failed. Similar spectrum then was touted by the likes of Winstar, Teligent and others as a solution for high-speed access in the business market. The effort failed.

Much spectrum then was acquired by firms such as Sprint Nextel, BellSouth and MCI and spend years essentially languishing. Now Clearwire and Sprint say the former MMDS spectrum will be the foundation for WiMAX.

We shall see. A smaller new company, Towerstream Corp., is selling 8 Mbps broadband connections for $1,000 a month in eight markets, and currently plans to operate in 20 cities within two years.

In its Seattle market, starting February 1, new customers will be able to buy 3 Mbps connections bandwidth for $499 a month, with free installation. Towerstream offers businesses a range of bandwidth options including T1, T3, 100 and 1000 Mbps connections

The company has established networks in Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Seattle, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the greater Boston, Providence and Newport, R.I.

Using WiMAX technology, the company can “light" a city with just a few antennas. Its New York City network uses four antennas, including one on the Empire State Building.

TowerStream undercuts competitor prices for a T1 line by 50 percent or better. The small antennas that the company locates at the customers’ premises are installed by contract DISH or DirecTV installers.

Provisioning intervals normally are two or three days, compared with three to six weeks for a T1 line from a telephone company or competitive local exchange carrier.

Mid-band speeds in the 8 Mbps to 10 Mbps range seem to be the "sweet spot."

TowerStream appears to be using both telesales and direct sales approaches. It is said to have a 180-seat telemarketing center and is in the midst of expanding its sales force to 160 people, according to Morgan Joseph analysts, who say the company won 27 contracts in eight days, on the strength of 58 proposals. The company appears to have 100 or so direct sales reps trained and ready to call on prospects.

If history is any guide the company should enjoy at least modest success. By avoiding the mass market, it stays out of the way of 3G and other 4G networks aimed at consumers and small business. That's a strategy that lots of other wireless access providers also use.

So far, however, no single entity has managed to build a big business on the backs of fixed wireless broadband in the small business, medium-sized business or enterprise markets. And it may be that the path to success is precisely to operate as a niche provider, in high-density markets, without getting grandiose. That's typically where operators have stumbled in the past. But we'll have to watch and see.

In many cases the business case rests on prosaic concerns. LMDS operators found they had trouble getting access to rooftops once landlords decided they were sitting on a gold mine. It wasn't, but the incremental real estate access charges were enough to kill the business case.

Then there is the availability of riser and conduit space, access to it and the cost of new cabling. Assuming those sorts of issues can be managed, TowerStream might have a shot, at least in some markets, such as New York.

Bandwidth in the 8 Mbps to 10 Mbps range is a bit more than the 4 Mbps to 6 Mbps mid-band Ethernet service some other providers are finding attractive.

"Tokens" are the New "FLOPS," "MIPS" or "Gbps"

Modern computing has some virtually-universal reference metrics. For Gemini 1.5 and other large language models, tokens are a basic measure...