Boingo, Sprint Sign Airport Roaming Deal

Boingo Wireless and Sprint have announced a multi-year Wi-Fi agreement, enabling Sprint customers seamless roaming onto Boingo Wi-Fi networks in 35 major U.S. airports.

Sprint devices within proximity of a Boingo hotspot can automatically connect to the Wi-Fi network seamlessly, providing service at the fastest speeds available, be that cellular from Sprint or Wi-Fi from Boingo, Sprint says.

The auto-authenticating Wi-Fi connections are available at no additional charge to all Sprint customers with capable devices, and usage while connected to Wi-Fi does not count towards a customer’s monthly service plan.

The deal illustrates a key change in mobile network access. Instead of representing a substitute form of access, Wi-Fi now allows mobile service providers to provide better end user experience at some locations, without consuming any of a user’s data plan.

“With Wi-Fi being the world’s largest wireless ecosystem, we view it as a highly complementary layer to our network,” said Stephen Bye, Sprint CTO. “By enabling customers to move seamlessly between secure Wi-Fi and cellular, our customers will have a better mobile experience in more locations, all while lowering their cost of data usage.”

In principle, the Sprint-Boingo deal illustrates how fifth generation mobile networks will be designed to work. Ideally, devices will choose from any available access network, choosing the strongest signal or best connection, automatically.

At least conceptually, there could be another shift. Traditional mobile networks were designed around session handoff between macrocells.

The 5G network might more nearly represent an architecture analogous to Wi-Fi: a dense network of small cells.

That means the process of registering a device to a hotspot is key, in addition to flipping back to a macrocell if Wi-Fi signal is too weak.

Where the traditional switching operation is between macrocells, the new switching operations might include shifts within a single macrocell, and choosing networks based on latency performance or bandwidth, not simply signal strength.

India Mobile Voice ARPU Drops Again

India’s Airtel provides more evidence that a mainstay product in the telecom industry--mobile voice--is following its cousin fixed network voice along the classic product life cycle.

Airtel's voice revenue per minute of use dipped 2.4 percent, compared to the prior quarter, while average revenue per user also fell in the quarter ending in March 2015.

Overall revenue grew 31 percent, year over year, due to mobile data revenues, counteracting the revenue pressure in the voice business. That also is part of a global trend, namely that mobile access to the Internet now is the revenue growth driver in many markets.

Idea Cellular, the third-largest provider by subscribers,  also reported a three percent quarter-on-quarter decline in voice revenue per minute.

The trend is long standing. Prices have been falling since at least 2007. Likewise, data revenues have been growing since at least 2006, in the Indian mobile market, while voice prices have declined almost steadily since then.

Spectrum Sharing Has Varying Business Platform Implications

Spectrum sharing can take a number of forms, with greater or lesser degrees of impact on access markets, the fortunes of service providers and end users.

Wi-Fi has been the classic case of shared access, as well as the classic case of unlicensed access. Until recently, Wi-Fi offered a limited business case for some hotspot aggregators focusing on business travelers, but lots of value for consumer Internet access inside their own homes, and business users at their workplaces.

More recently, Wi-Fi hotspots have provided value for mobile end users and service providers by enabling offloading of Internet access operations, thus saving consumption on data plans.

Now firms such as Comcast are building large networks of consumer-based hotspots, with an eye to eventual branded communications services and wholesale backhaul and commercial hotspot revenues.

More recently, there is new thinking on shared access using TV White Spaces, which essentially are frequencies otherwise allocated for use by TV broadcasters, but which might actually be unused in many markets.

In India, spectrum sharing also takes the form of mobile operators agreeing to allow other carriers access to licensed frequencies, so long as reciprocity is available.  In other words, one carrier might agree to share frequencies within a single band (800 MHz, for example).

In the United States, a new form of sharing will be enabled in the 3.5 GHz band, with existing licensed users retaining primary access, but with commercial entities able to obtain licenses for secondary use, while some spectrum will also be available for unlicensed use, on a best effort basis, by devices and users, so long as primary and secondary licensees are not using the spectrum, at any place and at the same time.

3.5 GHz and 5 GHZ Will See Novel Spectrum Sharing Techniques

In the U.S. market, 3.5 GHz and 5 GHz are the frequency bands where spectrum sharing is going to be extended, each featuring a unique approach to sharing.

In the 3.5 GHz band, one would in the past have witnessed a complicated process whereby existing licensed users transition off the band to new frequencies, while new users eventually are allowed to then use the spectrum.

Instead, and for the first time, licensed users will continue to use the original spectrum, while additional groups of users are allowed to share the capacity when spare bandwidth is available.

As planned, the  3550-3700 MHz band would be governed under a three-tier system.

The top tier would be reserved for federal and non-federal incumbent users including the Defense Department.

The lowest tier, General Authorized Access (GAA), would be open to any FCC-certified device.

The middle tier, dubbed the Priority Access tier, would make available Priority Access Licenses (PAL), or “targeted, short-duration licenses,” for auction, presumably to commercial users requiring more bandwidth predictability.

Sharing in the 5-GHz band will operate differently. Designated as a new band for Wi-Fi, licensed mobile carriers would be able to contend for use of capacity using a protocol known as License Assisted Access (LAA).

License Assisted Access would allow licensed Long Term Evolution 4G providers to bond or aggregate 5 GHZ Wi-Fi spectrum with licensed LTE frequencies.

Will Dish Pay More for AWS-3 Spectrum, or Lose It?

In yet another example of how regulatory policies are shaping U.S. communication markets, the

Federal Communications Commission has been investigating whether spectrum won by Dish Network Corp. affiliates actually are eligible for bidding discounts that would save the bidding entities about $3.3 billion in fees.

What might happen to the spectrum is the issue. If the FCC decides the bidding entities must pay the full price, they would have to come with an additional $3.3 billion or lose the spectrum.

SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless are affiliates of Dish Network, as Dish owns 85 percent of each of the two firms.

The FCC has yet to approve the discounts  and may decide the companies aren't eligible for the discounts.

Some estimate the total value of Dish Network mobile spectrum at $39 billion.

But there could be some possibility the winning bids could be disallowed, one might speculate. Verizon, for example, has alleged antitrust violations in the Dish, Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless bidding patterns.

Separately, Sprint, T-Mobile US and Dish Network have asked the FCC to reserve fully half the spectrum in the planned 600-MHz auctions for “smaller carriers.”

Some--including at least one FCC commissioner--have argued that doing so will cause the auction either to raise less money, or lead to the release of less spectrum for bidding, because the spectrum reserves will low the value of the spectrum. Broadcasters who own the spectrum licenses might simply hold onto them, instead of putting the spectrum up for bid.

Clearly, Unlicensed Spectrum Lowers Equity Value of Mobile Service Providers

Though it is hard to clearly separate the value of mobile spectrum from the value of mobile operations (service providers not able to deploy spectrum commercially will lose it), rights to use spectrum repreent major portions of the market value of every facilities-based mobile service provider. The only issue is how much value, and what percentage of value, rights to use spectrum represent.

In all, AT&T now holds spectrum licenses worth more than $91 billion, estimates Goldman Sachs analyst Brett Feldman. He also estimates the value of Verizon's spectrum at $79.4 billion.

The current equity value of all AT&T stock is $176.5 billion, implying that spectrum alone represents 51.6 percent of AT&T’s total equity value.

Verizon’s market value is $207.9 billion, implying that Verizon’s spectrum represents 38 percent of total valuation.

Feldman estimates that the U.S. mobile industry spectrum, plus Dish Network’s spectrum, represents $368 billion in value.

All that could change dramatically in the future, though, as shared spectrum, unlicensed spectrum and dynamic spectrum alternatives are made possible. All those methods could reduce the amount of licensed spectrum mobile service providers have to buy or reduce the market value of current holdings.

To be sure, many proponents of unlicensed spectrum believe releasing much more spectrum in that way will reduce the scarcity value of licensed spectrum held by mobile service providers.

Dish Network owns rights to use spectrum worth perhaps $50 billion, if actually deployed, and virtually nothing if Dish Network does not put the spectrum into commercial use, or sell the rights to some other company able to launch commercial services.

T-Mobile US might own about $55 billion worth of spectrum, while Sprint owns more than $67 billion worth of spectrum, according to Goldman Sachs.

Will Abundance Lessen Value of Federated Wi-Fi Networks?

Lots of commercial firms have been trying to leverage Wi-Fi to support new business models. Networks such as Boingo, Fon, Republic Wireless, Cablevision Systems Corp., Comcast, Google and many others are trying to create revenue and business models from a “no incremental cost” service based on unlicensed spectrum.

AllCity Wireless, for example, has introduced an enterprise-class  ÜberWi solution that allows businesses to quickly and economically manage and monetize their Wi-Fi networks by enabling customer engagement features.

Comcast has created a huge network of public Wi-Fi hotspots by leveraging its base of residential high speed access customers. Many mobile service providers, including now Google Fi, aim to reduce costs and retail prices by leveraging Wi-Fi access as much as possible.

Some might argue all that activity will reduce the potential value of Wi-Fi access as a substitute for mobile or other commercial purposes, as more providers of Wi-Fi try to monetize it.

In other words, as Wi-Fi network suppliers such as Comcast, aggregators such as Boingo, or end users such as hotels try to put Wi-Fi access behind a paywall, the ability to use such federated networks as a cost reduction, or demand reduction method, is diminished.

That is true in one sense. Fewer networks are truly unsecured and therefore open to anyone to use.  In another sense, the ability to wring additional value is created by the ability to federate access to large networks of hotspots.

If new value could not be created by federating hotspots, Boingo and Fon could not exist, and Comcast would not invest capital to create its own network of hotspots.

On the other hand, the value of such federated networks always is subject to the scarcity and price of other access alternatives. In fact, one might argue that, at some future point not too far off, when fifth generation networks are ubiquitous, there will be so much mobile network capacity, at reasonable enough cost, that the value of federated Wi-Fi networks could diminish.

For mobile and other service providers, value tends to hinge on “scarcity.” That being the case, “abundance” can disrupt business models.

As hard as it might be to imagine, the value of federated Wi-Fi networks could decline, in future years, if mobile bandwidth is more plentiful, and therefore the value of offloading is lessened.

Google Fi Mobile Data Pricing is the Same, Globally, as Domestic

Google’s Project Fi embodies some experience elements that might well already be coming in the fifth generation of mobile networks, namely the ability to switch seamlessly between any available access network to take advantage of speed, quality or possibly even price.

The whole idea is ensuring smartphone users are on the fastest possible network, wherever they are, on whatever device they are using.

The idea of switching between Wi-Fi and the mobile network, albeit with something less than full seamlessness, already is a familiar consumer experience. The idea of a seamless switch between Wi-Fi and multiple mobile networks, however, is new.

Other elements of the experience, given the virtual nature of Google’s cloud apps might be different, allowing communications from phones, tablets, PCs or other devices. But much of that capability already is available to Google Hangout users.

On the other hand, Project Fi will advance the “borderless communications” in several ways beyond the programs mobile operators already have been creating.

Google Fi users pay $20 a month for talk, text, Wi-Fi tethering and international coverage in 120 countries, plus the $10 per gigabyte of data. The possibly-compelling feature is that Fi users pay just $10 per gigabyte for mobile data no matter where they are in the world.

Of course, right now that means data at 256 kbps. So your behavior will be constrained. But some bandwidth, if slow, beats no bandwidth, or expensive bandwidth that might also be rather slow.

Offload is Becoming a Bigger Issue

Bandwidth offload is becoming a bigger issue in the telecommunications business. Traditionally, Wi-Fi has been the primary method used by either fixed or mobile Internet access providers to enable off-network connectivity.

But carrier Wi-Fi and small cells also are ways to offload traffic from the mobile network, or increase the capacity of the network. Likewise, licensed assisted access is a way to augment Long Term Evolution licensed bandwidth capacity with Wi-Fi capacity.

Some observers might argue that among AT&T’s reasons for buying DirecTV

is the ability to offload linear video, freeing up more bandwidth for high speed access.

There is some truth to that notion, but AT&T also says the amount of potential bandwidth savings are  “not competitively material.”

AT&T argues there is an advantage to “offloading” linear video to DirecTV delivery, reserving nearly all the rest of the bandwidth for high speed access,

“For bundle customers that choose that option (DirecTV for video and U-verse for high speed access and voice), there will be no need to reserve a fraction of the line capacity for U-verse video service, freeing up more of the line’s capacity for broadband service,” AT&T said.

Cable operators face a similar issue, as bandwidth required for video operations displaces bandwidth that otherwise could be used to support faster high speed access.

Still, some potential bandwidth savings are not, as AT&T argues, material, compared to the other reasons for the acquisition of DirecTV. Lots of free cash flow is the main attraction, though some savings on content costs are expected. Also an advantage is the ability to compete nationwide with a bundle including linear video, high speed access and voice, for the first time.

Falling Smartphone Prices Remove Internet Adoption Barriers

Global smartphone sales likely grew 18 percent in 2014, led by big emerging markets such as China, India, and Indonesia, and driven by rapid price cuts for smartphones, according to consultants at Boston Consulting Group.

Mobile Internet penetration globally doubled from 18 percent in 2011 to 36 percent today in 2015. By 2017, mobile access will exceed fixed-line access, with 54 percent penetration compared with 51 percent. At that point, mobile will account for almost 60 percent of all spending on Internet access.

Mobile adoption will even higher in some countries and regions.

In sub-Saharan Africa, mobile penetration is about 60 percent, compared with less than two percent for fixed-line access. Ultimately, entire nations in Africa will access the Internet only through mobile devices.

One big impediment to mobile usage in developing economies has been the high price of smartphones, but that is changing quickly.

Google launched its Android One phone in India in 2014; this model retails for about $100. Another new smartphone launched in India, by Intex Technologies and its partner, Mozilla, retails for 1,900 rupees, or about $33. Xioami’s Redmi and Motorola’s Moto G devices are also lowering prices dramatically for smartphone consumers in India.

Average smartphone selling prices fell 25 percent worldwide between 2011 and 2013 and are expected to drop a further 19 percent by 2017,

Will "Wi-Fi First" Work as a Revenue Model in U.S. Market?

How effective might “Wi-Fi first” or “Wi-Fi only” mobile services prove to be, in the U.S. market? Most observers in the U.S. cable TV industry, and a few mobile operators, tend to be sanguine.

Cable TV operators tend to be optimistic for several reasons. It already is clear that large networks of small cells (Wi-Fi today, carrier Wi-Fi and mobile small cells in the future) are going to be necessary, which means lots of backhaul.

And cable operators would argue they have the best network of “small cells” and the backhaul to support retail operations or supply wholesale connections to others. Either way, there is revenue to be had.

There are, in other words, a few potential revenue models. A cable operator might launch its own mobile virtual network operator service, hoping to wring higher margins by offloading lots of traffic to its own Wi-Fi or small cell network.

A few cable operators might consider a strategy that includes buying or becoming a facilities-based mobile operator, using the offload capability largely for capacity gains at its heavy-traffic areas, or for stationary indoor uses.

Alternatively, the network could support wholesale capacity sales to third parties who need backhaul or access to large Wi-Fi hotspot networks.

Much depends on assumptions about present and future data usage, coverage expectations and use modes. In other words, what apps people want to use, where they want to do so, and what else they are doing makes a big difference.

If “most” data is consumed in homes, at offices or other stationary locations, then a dense small cell network will provide lots of value. Conversely, if devices are used frequently for voice and text messaging, and less often for stationary data consumption, the small network provides less value.

Also, the value of any such network will depend on density, both of the network nodes and potential users routinely near the nodes. The greatest value likely will be obtained in busy urban areas, the least value in rural or suburban areas.

Some might argue the amount of traffic offload to the owned public Wi-Fi networks being built by Comcast and others will never be sufficiently large to provide a robust business case. But that might be workable especially if there are multiple revenue opportunities.

That is the underpinning of the “Wi-Fi first” mobile strategy for contestants who do not own their own mobile networks, but can create an owned small cell network.

PT Indosat Launches Zero Rated Internet.org Bundle

Indonesia's PT Indosat and Facebook have launched sponsored access to Internet.org apps in Indonesia. The new bundle of apps includes Wikipedia, Accuweather, Jobstreet, auction sites OLX and Tokopedia and Unicef's Facts For Life, and will be offered at no charge for its IM3 and Mentari prepaid customers, as well as its Matrix postpaid subscribers.

Such zero-rated apps have become controversial, as some consider the practice a violation of network neutrality principles. Others argue zero rating is a way to introduce people to the Internet, encouraging sampling and usage, without requiring purchase of a data plan.

It is perhaps a classic example of conflicting--and otherwise laudable--goals: allowing millions of people to use the Internet for the first time, at no incremental cost, and the goal of fostering robust innovation in the ecosystem.

Some seem to argue the potential for innovation must be protected, even at the risk of limiting Internet access. Others would argue that providing Internet access is more important than any potential impact on innovation, if there is any adverse impact.

10X Lower Cost LTE Infrastructure Using Balloons?

Can mobile service providers across South Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania get Long Term Evolution coverage at an order of magnitude lower costs by partnering with Google’s Project Loon?

Project Loon supporters believe that is possible.

In recent tests, Project Loon has partnered with mobile service providers with in-place LTE towers to provide backhaul to Project Loon balloons, along the 40th parallel.

At the 30th parallel, winds are easterly. Near the equator the winds are westerly. Presumably the same techniques would work at other latitudes.

By definition, some LTE tower infrastructure is required, as those towers provide uplink to the balloons.

But the balloons then provide LTE coverage directly to LTE-capable handsets. At this point, it likely makes sense for mobile service providers to source wholesale retail capacity on the balloons, which essentially substitute for fixed mobile cell sites.

The mobile service provider networks and towers, on the other hand, will provide Project Loon with backhaul.

Google says it can now deliver data at 5 Mbps to mobile phones, or 22 Mbps to fixed antennas.

Ofcom Identifies 5G Spectrum

Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, has identified the millimeter wave bands it believes are best for fifth generation (5G) networks, and especially suitable for early discussion at the upcoming World Radio Conference.

“Our preliminary view is that the frequency bands 10.125 to 10.225; 10.475 to 10.575 GHz; 31.8 to  33.4 GHz; 40.5 to 43.5 GHz; 45.5 to 48.9 GHz and 66 to 71 GHz should be considered for study under a focussed agenda item on 5G mobile broadband for WRC-19,” Ofcom said.

At the moment, Ofcom says, there is general consensus that immediate efforts should be focused on additional spectrum below 100 GHz. Satellite interests generally argued that new allocations should be made at above 30 GHz, to avoid interference with existing satellite operations.

“We think these bands may be relatively straightforward to make available in the UK

compared to other options within the range 6 to 100 GHz...and could have potential for being harmonised and developed for future 5G use globally,” Ofcom said.

Spectrum adjacent to these bands, such as around 10 GHz, 43.5 to 45.5 GHz and 71 to 76 GHz and 81 to 86 GHz also are worth examining, Ofcom said.

To give you some idea of how much spectrum might be feasible, consider that Ofcom said

“it is particularly difficult to identify bandwidths of least 1 GHz below 30 GHz taking

account of incumbent use of these bands.” In other words, Ofcom is looking, ideally, at allocations of at least 1,000 MHz per band.  

Ofcom also points out that several different technology solutions will help enable use of spectrum above 6 GHz to enable 5G.

Those solutions include  massive multiple input, multiple output radios, directional and phased array antennas, beamforming, ultra-dense small cell networks, better semiconductor technology, signal polarization and dynamic spectrum access.

source: Ofcom

Will LTE Provide Backhaul for Project Loon When Launched Commercially?

Google's Project Loon, now testing use of unmanned balloons to provide Internet access, has important trials underway with Telstra in Australia, Telefonica in Latin America and with Vodafone in New Zealand. 

 It is believed the tests involve relaying Long Term Evolution signals from mobile cell towers up to the balloons, and then back to earth. 

Presumably the terminals are smartphones, modified for the test frequencies, able to receive LTE signals directly from the balloons.

That suggests a plausible backhaul network will be based on mobile LTE towers and networks. Whether that will prove the only backhaul method, over time, remains to be seen. 

Is Google Antitrust Action Evidence that Market Already is Changing?

It sometimes is noted that regulators are “behind the market,” or “behind the technology,” no matter how hard they try to stay current.

In the financial world, it likewise is noted that, by the time, the retail investor catches up to a trend, the trend already is about to reverse.

That arguably is the case with the new European Union investigations of Google in the search market and now possibly also in the area of mobile operating systems. Whether the relationship was causal or simply correlated, the decade-ago investigation by the EU of Microsoft’s similar antitrust threat coincided with the emergence of a new era of computing, and computing industry leadership.

That, some of us would say, is likely to be the case as the EU investigates Google for antitrust violations: such action is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator.

In other words, a shift is likely already to be underway, rendering the danger of Google antitrust danger quite moot.

The problem faced by regulators and business leaders often is that strategies deemed vital at one moment in time can seem almost irrelevant a decade later.

Consider the launch of the Android mobile operating system by Google, seen in 2005 as an insurance policy against complete dominance in the mobile realm by Microsoft, with the danger that could pose for Google apps on mobile devices.

That was before the emergence of the Apple iPhone. A decade later, the strategic rationale arguably no longer has such potency. For starters, Microsoft Mobile is not a huge factor. Nor has Android proved to be the boon many might have expected. Android doesn’t directly generate revenue for Google, and “forked” versions of Android even are proving to be the foundation for new rival ecosystems (Amazon now, and possibly Microsoft and others in the future).

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 likewise was the first major revision of the Communications Act of 1934. Aiming to introduce competition in the telecommunications market, the Act focused on enabling voice competition.

More than a decade later, it is clear what really happened. Voice was about to reach its peak of adoption in 2000, to begin a steady decline. The Internet, meanwhile, emerged as the vital source of telecommunications-delivered applications and value.

The Act made sense at the time. But policymakers could not have foreseen the maturation of voice and its replacement by Internet apps as the source of innovation and growth.  

It is very hard to make the right strategic decisions today, and have them remain relevant after a decade. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and launch of Android were aimed at problems that did not materialize, or arose from unexpected directions.

Will Wireless Bandwidth Progress at Moore's Law Rates?

A rational person might think of all sorts of logical reasons why Internet access bandwidth “cannot” progress at Moore’s Law rates.

Fixed network access, for example, involves building physical facilities. And construction projects do not lend themselves to Moore’s Law in a direct sense.

In the mobile or wireless space, the limitation is available spectrum. There is only so much spectrum--licensed and unlicensed--available for use.

Shockingly, however, Moore’s Law rates of change do seem to apply to Internet access--even to wireless and mobile access, despite genuine skepticism about the ability to make such progress in the mobile and wireless networks segment of the access business.  

Still, some of us would argue that mobile Internet access will progress at Moore's Law rates, using better signal processing, better radios, millimeter waves, small cell architectures and better coding.  

The trend is equally clear in the fixed networks segment. Comcast, for example, has been doubling the capacity of its access network every 18 months, precisely what one would expect from any product based on Moore’s Law.

That is not to say every ISP can do so, or has done so; simply to note that Comcast has been able to do so. Still, as a general principle, U.S. Internet access speeds have progressed as one would have expected from a Moore’s Law process.

The latest move is an upgrade of the entire Comcast residential footprint to 1 Gbps by the end of 2015, with 2 Gbps service available to about 86 percent of locations.

The thing about Moore’s Law, and any product built in part on Moore’s Law, is that the benefits flow broadly across the full range of use cases, and are not restricted to the headline improvements.

In other words, the fact that a given level of memory or processing doubles, but can be purchased at the same price, also means performance and price relationships are enhanced across the full range of processors and memory, below the headline figure.

That is the case for Comcast’s Internet access services, not scheduled to be upgraded to 1 Gbps across the full footprint, while 86 percent of locations are upgraded to a symmetrical 2 Gbps capability, by the end of 2015.

Though the “headline” is the boost in top marketed speeds to 2 Gbps, most consumers will  benefit because the speeds they actually buy are boosted, for no extra price.

That, more than the upgrade to 1 Gbps or 2 Gbps, symmetrical, is where the impact mostly will occur.

Comcast is launching “Extreme 250,” a new 250 Mbps Internet speed tier for California customers, but also boosting the “Performance” tier from 50 Mbps to 75 Mbps and its Blast tier from 105 Mbps to 150 Mbps, both at no additional cost to customers.  These changes will go into effect starting in May 2015.

Oddly enough, most consumers will not be able to detect the changes, the simple reason being that, beyond about 10 Mbps to 15 Mbps per user, the fundamental constraints on experience lie with the far-end servers, not the local access pipe.

Gigabit speeds will not--by itself--improve user experience, in other words.  After about 10 Mbps, no single user is likely to see much improvement, if at all, in page load times, for example.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission and U.K. Ofcom agree: beyond 10 Mbps per user, experience is not measurably improved--if at all--by faster Internet access speeds.

Instead, latency is becoming the key experience limitation.

Still, the primary “benefits” of gigabit or 2 Gbps speeds will be “seen” (in terms of marketing message) at the lower speed tiers up to 150 Mbps, which users will get at no extra charge, and which are the tiers of service most people now buy.

That is as much a Moore’s Law impact as the headline speed.