Most Consumers Would Consider a Wi-Fi-First Mobile Service, "If"

Fully 66 percent of consumers surveyed across the globe, and a whopping 77 percent of U.S. and Canadian consumers, would consider replacing their current mobile plan with a Wi-Fi-first offering, if quality of experience were equivalent, a study conducted for Amdocs by Linx-IE Market Research Corp. has found.

"Only 10 percent of North Americans said never," said Uri Gurevitz, Amdocs director of market insight and strategy. The study surveyed 4,000 "digital consumers" in 11 nations around the world, including the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Brazil, Russia and Singapore.

U.S. and Canadian respondents said they'd consider making a switch if the Wi-Fi service offered the same access and coverage as their existing mobile Internet plan.

"Definitely pricing is important," Gurevitz said. "But network quality is more important. Price becomes a very distant third, fourth or fifth."

Those results show both the potential, and constraints, of a Wi-Fi-first mobile access strategy. “Same coverage and same access” are key qualifying clauses.

Wi-Fi coverage has to be both integrated with mobile coverage, and seamless. That means any Wi-Fi-first provider has to have a mobile virtual network operator agreement, at the very least, and ownership of a national network, at best.

In all cases, seamless handoff would be required to provide a fully-comparable experience to a mobile network access approach.

Cable TV operator carrier-grade Wi-Fi hotspots will grow from 14 percent today to 72 percent of overall Wi-Fi hotspots by 2018, research commissioned by Amdocs has found.

As part of their Wi-Fi network strategy to enable Wi-Fi coverage on the move, by 2016, 77 percent of cable TV operators surveyed plan to use "homespots" (where the user agrees to leave the hotspot open for use by passers-by), growing from 30 percent today.

Almost all operators (85 percent) plan to invest in carrier-grade Wi-Fi by 2016. Cable operators see carrier-grade Wi-Fi providing better positioning in mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) deals, supporting quad-play offerings and wireless services, while MNOs plan to use carrier-grade Wi-Fi broaden their networks and offload radio access network (RAN) traffic

By the end of 2016, 61 percent of cable operator Wi-Fi hotspots, and 70 percent of hotspots sourced by all access service providers. will be sourced from third parties.

4G Getting Big Boost in India

Although deployment of fourth generation networks in India has been limited in the past, the entry of new supplier Reliance Jio--emphasizing its fourth generation network--has fueled a wave of 4G activations by the larger incumbent mobile service providers.

Vodafone India, the country's second largest telecom service provider, now says it will launch 4G services by end of 2015 with Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bengaluru and Kochi being the part of the first wave of the roll-out.

Separately, Bharti Airtel had announced it would launch 4G later in 2015.

Those deployments might largely be strategic in nature, as 2G remains the mass market standard, while deployment of 3G has yet to occur broadly, even if 3G adoption is expected to grow fast.

On the other hand, some might argue 4G now will eclipse 3G, in a sort of leapfrog manner.

source: Quartz India

LTE-U Debate is About Business Advantage, Not Technology

Sparring over the content of new regulations, spectrum and licensing is normal in the telecommunications business. So it comes as no surprise that major interests are clashing over the ways Wi-Fi  devices can get access to Wi-Fi.

Specifically, the Wi-Fi Alliance, Google and CableLabs oppose certification of any Wi-Fi devices using the Long Term Evolution-Universal platform, until further tests are conducted.

On the other side are Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Qualcomm, Samsung Corp. and Verizon Communications.

Or, to put it in commercial terms, there is a clash between firms with business models based on licensed spectrum and business models based substantially on license-exempt spectrum.

Proponents argue that LTE-U has already been extensively tested, and not only does it not interfere with WiFi, but WiFi performance actually improves slightly in some cases.

Supporters claim LTE-U is a better neighbor to Wi-Fi access points than Wi-Fi access points are to themselves. Wi-Fi access points often interfere with one another, but LTE-U is designed to go out of its way to be polite.

Opponents fear there will be more contention for available Wi-Fi resources.

Though there is room for debate about test methods, the broader business issue is perceived advantage. Mobile interests believe they gain if LTE-U is used. Others believe they lose if LTE-U is enabled.

Wi-Fi Will Play a Role in Creating "Lowest Cost Provider" Advantage

I often have argued that Internet Protocol is not simply a technology framework, but also a business framework. Because IP deliberately separates apps from access, third party apps can be developed, and used, without asking permission of any access provider.

Commonly understood as the “over the top” business issue, revenue models can be developed without “ownership” of access assets. Up to this point, that has been of greatest value to app providers, great value to device suppliers, and largely negative for access providers.

The reason is simple: the access function becomes a “dumb pipe,” a way to get access to the world of apps built on IP. In coming iterations of access platforms, it is likely that such principles will begin to be applied even more directly to the access platforms themselves, with a mix of upside and downside.

Advantage will flow to those service providers able to best use “any access,” while each discrete access provider business might win or lose, depending on its scale. Generally, the largest providers with the most customers and the widest geographic scale will be able to leverage “use any access” to greatest advantage.

There are other important potential ramifications, including competitive advantage based on cost structure.

In a competitive market, one might well argue, the lowest cost provider among the contestants with significant market share, will win (some smaller contestants could well have even lower cost profiles, but no ability to scale).

And, as it has become undeniable that mobility continues to lead revenue growth and strategy in the broader market, what “cost leadership” looks like in the mobile space now is significant.

Without any question, Wi-Fi has become a core and foundational part of the access fabric for mobile devices and customers. “Ownership,” as such, is less important than “access.”

That roughly mirrors the structure of the Internet Protocol-based communications and application markets, where an app provider does not have to “own access assets,” but simply can use “any available access.”

So mobile service providers can “use” Wi-Fi assets without owning them. That directly affects thinking about investments in access assets. As it turns out, it is less expensive to rely on Wi-Fi for much, if not the majority, of “mobile” access operations.

In other words, encouraging users to go “untethered” on Wi-Fi benefits both users and carriers, as demand is shifted off the core mobile networks. That much is obvious.

Also obvious is that fixed network providers with dense backhaul networks stand to reap benefits as suppliers of small cell (mobile or Wi-Fi hotspots) networks, either for internal use or as a revenue-generating wholesale opportunity.

Just as obviously, any “mobile” service provider able to leverage such assets can change the cost structure of “mobility” services.

And that is precisely the opportunity cable TV operators believe they can seize.

LTE-U: For Every Public Purpose, There is a Corresponding Private Interest

source: Wall Street Journal

For every public purpose, there is a corresponding private interest. That is as true for Wi-Fi policy as for any other public policy. At stake is the notion that some potential devices and users of Wi-Fi capacity--even if they fully comply with all rules about signal interference, should not be able to get access, essentially.

Long Term Evolution-Universal, using one of several proposed protocols, would allow bonding of LTE mobile network capacity with some Wi-Fi capacity.

Some major app providers, including Google, and some Internet access providers, especially cable TV companies, oppose deployment of any of the LTE-U protocols.

There are valid public policy issues, to be sure But the clash of private interests cannot be dismissed. Basically, the major parties to the debates are interested in exploiting, or protecting, a perceived source of business advantage.

Mobile service providers see a way to create a higher-quality mobile experience, and possibly turn “free” Wi-Fi access into an incremental revenue stream, with measurable reductions of capital investment related to supplying capacity.

App providers and cable TV interests see a threat to the value of present interests. Cable TV operators creating big public Wi-Fi networks arguably want to preserve the exclusivity, scarcity, and therefore potential revenue potential of their Wi-Fi networks.

App providers that rely on Wi-Fi as low-cost ways to support large Internet audiences, might worry about degradation of experience if mobile devices connect using LTE-U (or some other similar protocol) instead of using native Wi-Fi, which smartphones already can do.

Beyond that, some app providers or device suppliers might see an eventual use of Wi-Fi to support their mobile access businesses. In that event, forms of mobile operator Wi-Fi access that leverage Wi-Fi more directly could nullify some of the advantage app, device or cable TV suppliers might expect.

Such concerns might especially be heightened in markets where mobile operators already represent the main way people get access to the Internet, such as in India. LTE-U would allow mobile operators to use Wi-Fi assets even more effectively than they already do.

source: Economic Times

Satellite, Mobile Interests Spar Over Some C-Band Spectrum

Satellite and mobile industry interests are maneuvering in advance of the World Radiocommunication Conference in November 2015 over spectrum allocation, as many in the mobile industry are pushing to designate the “L-band” spectrum (1.4 GHz to 1.5 GHz) for mobile communications, and more importantly, the 3.4 GHz to 3.6 GHz (or up to 4.2 GHz) spectrum in the C-band for mobile communications as well.

The L band originally was licensed for mobile TV apps.

Satellite interests are worried about losing spectrum  to the mobile industry, now and longer term.

“The GSMA commends CITEL’s (Inter-American Telecommunication Commission) decision to support the entire L-band (1427 MHz to 1518 MHz) for mobile broadband,” said John Giusti, , GSMA Deputy Chief Regulatory Officer. “Early indications suggest that this band will have widespread support as a globally harmonised band at WRC-15.”

As of September 2014, there were 216 million individuals using mobile devices to access the internet in Latin America, an overall penetration rate of approximately 35 percent, GSMA says.

By 2020, the GSMA forecasts that penetration will come close to 50 percent of the population, which means an additional 105 million people will gain access to the mobile internet.

Mobile data traffic is predicted to rise more than sixfold in North America and tenfold in Latin America between 2014 and 2019.

GSMA also is working to develop a unified position on the sub-700 MHz UHF band (470-698 MHz) as well, citing its importance for affordable rural connectivity.

NIST to Study 28 GHZ to 38 GHz, 70 GHz to 90 GHz Millimeter Wave Network Behavior

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has formed a group to explore and help commercialize millimeter wave frequencies never before useful for widespread communications services.

The group is looking at spectrum in the 28 GHz to 38 GHz and 70 GHz to 90 GHz ranges.

Calling itself the 5G mmWave Channel Model Alliance, The main differentiator between the 5G mmWave Channel Model Alliance and other individual organizations such as Intel and New York University that are doing research on frequencies above 6 GHzis that the alliance hopes to comprehensively study the target spectrum more methodically than any group doing single-frequency, specific technology research.

What Will It Take, Who Will Lead Internet Access in South Asia, SE Asia?

What will it take, who will lead, and what new opportunities will develop as part of the effort to connect a billion or more new Internet users across South Asia? That is the subject of Spectrum Futures, a new conference sponsored by the Pacific Telecommunications Council, and held in Singapore Sept. 10-11, 2015.

Hear from executives at Facebook, Ericsson, Qualcomm, Cisco, Ciena and other leading firms about the immense changes that will enable widespread and powerful access.

Discover from Reliance Communications and Global Cloud Xchange how mobile, access, data centers and computing architectures are now a seamless fabric, and what that means.

Learn about new backhaul platforms that will allow mobile and other ISPs to serve new customers affordably.

Understand how ISP, mobile and capacity suppliers, networks and revenue streams will evolve.

Find out how 5G, SDN, cloud computing, new backhaul networks and app promotions play a role.

Listen as innovators in spectrum and business models share their thoughts on what will drive Internet adoption.

See who wins, and why.

Those are a few of the reasons to attend the Spectrum Futures conference, to be held 10-11 September 2015 at the M Hotel in Singapore.

Attendance is strictly limited to 150 attendees, with priority for national communications regulators and their staffs. Register here.

Regulators and sponsors will gather on 9 September for dinner. The conference officially begins on 10 September with an all-day program and evening reception open to all registered attendees, and continues on 11 September with a half-day program followed by a regulators-only symposium. View the complete agenda here.

Can you afford to miss it?

Is Spectrum Sharing a Good Thing?

Is spectrum sharing a good thing? The answer generally depends on who you are, what you do in the Internet ecosystem, how you make your money and what sort of spectrum sharing is contemplated.

The specific answer is even more nuanced, and depends on what assets and demands an Internet service provider faces, how the specific trade-offs of costs and new capabilities and revenue are balanced.

Other broader political considerations also can come into play, as when a change of policy to support spectrum sharing is coming, whether specific entities like it or not.

In India, the immediate context is quite specific. Two mobile operators now are allowed to share spectrum they already are licensed to use, in the same frequency bands.

Such pooling of spectrum is a more limited case of spectrum sharing than other forms of dynamic spectrum allocation being considered around the world, but raises many of the basic business model issues.

Mobile operators have to balance higher spectrum fees (about 0.5 percent for use of shared spectrum) with the ability to generate new revenue from mobile data at 3G or 4G rates where it might not presently be possible.

In such cases, there are avoided capital costs (avoided backhaul and tower investments), higher operating costs (spectrum payments) but also revenue upside to consider.

So is spectrum sharing (pooling, in this case) a good thing, or not? The business case will drive the decision.

If both parties to a spectrum pooling agreement believe they benefit, it is a good thing.

But such pooling therefore is a bad thing from the perspective of other contenders in the same markets who cannot pool spectrum, since it makes stronger competitors of the two operators pooling spectrum.

Other forms of spectrum sharing raise more-profound issues, though. AT&T now holds spectrum licenses  worth more than $91 billion, estimates Goldman Sachs analyst Brett Feldman. He estimates the value of Verizon's spectrum at $79.4 billion.

Some have argued Dish Network’s equity value now substantially represents the value of spectrum licenses Dish owns. In fact, in late August 2015, Dish Network’s equity value was below that figure, at $28 billion.

Perhaps Dish Network’s spectrum is not worth $39 billion. But it might represent most of the current value of the company.

The point is that, traditionally, holders of licensed spectrum have valued it as a scarce asset. What one licensee has, no others may use. That drives up producer value.

In the case of Wi-Fi, the best understood example of license-exempt spectrum, there is no way to capture license value. That works fine for suppliers of devices and services that operate over the license-exempt spectrum, enabling services to be created at lower cost, since spectrum is not paid for.

And to the extent that license-exempt spectrum supports services that are similar to, or identical to, services provided over licensed spectrum, such spectrum arguably reduces the advantage of licensed spectrum.

In other cases, unlicensed spectrum helps service providers using  licensed spectrum. Mobile data offload and mobile device indoor coverage provide clear examples.

In other cases, as where commercial entities are allowed to use spectrum actually licensed to others, the acquired spectrum might have characteristics of licensed spectrum, especially when interference protection mechanisms keep others from using such capacity.

The biggest question likely is whether spectrum has to be paid for, or can be used on a license-exempt basis.

Generally speaking, device and app providers benefit from such access. Access providers gain some benefits, but also face devaluation of their licensed spectrum portfolios.

Millimeter Wave Radio Market Grows at 101% Rates

Some markets are almost certain to grow as gigabit connections, small cell architectures and millimeter wave networks become the foundation of access in many markets.

Point-to-point millimeter wave networks are one example.

“Although the millimeter wave market is still modest in scale at this point, the enhanced capacity capabilities delivered by this technology will be invaluable as a backhaul aggregation solution for small cell deployments as they scale up,” says Richard Webb, directing analyst for mobile backhaul and small cells at Infonetics Research. “We expect millimeter wave to play a significant role in outdoor small cell backhaul, which will become the primary long-term market driver.”

Infonetics projects the overall millimeter wave equipment market to grow to $755 million by 2018. The outdoor small cell backhaul segment of the millimeter wave equipment market is forecast by Infonetics to outpace all other segments of the market, growing at a 101 percent compound average growth rate  from 2013 to 2018.

Licensed E-band 70 GHz to 90 GHz equipment accounted for 93 percent of millimeter wave sales in the first half of 2014, with about 90 percent of equipment sales directly related to mobile backhaul applications.

Currently, the top 3 players in millimeter wave gear are E-Band Communications, NEC, and Siklu (in alphabetical order), Infonetics says.

Millimeter wave radios, as supplied by Siklu, have a range of about 3.5 miles (5.5 km) with reliability in the 99 percent range, in many geographies.  

Global Carriers Plan on LPWA IoT Networks in Licensed Spectrum

As important as fifth generation (5G) networks are expected to be, there are other platforms which could be equally important.

Some 26 of the world’s largest mobile operators, OEMs, chipset, module and infrastructure companies are working to create Low Power Wide Area (LPWA) solutions in licensed spectrum that are designed specifically for Internet of Things apps.

That is a bit of a shift. In the past, many had believed LPWA would make use of unlicensed spectrum at 433MHz, 868MHz, or 2.4GHz.

That could still happen, but the new initiative aimed at licensed spectrum suggests carriers believe they need the platform, and also need the additional assurance of a controlled spectrum environment, or that they believe global harmonization cannot happen fast enough to support mass deployment.

If commercial deployment is expected in 2016, it is likely the latter concern is the biggest driver: carriers think there is time pressure, and use of existing licensed spectrum eliminates the “wait for standards and spectrum harmonization.”

By using existing licensed spectrum, commercial deployment could begin without hinderance.

It is expected that initial specifications for LPWA solutions will be completed by the end of 2015, with a first implementation in early 2016 and full commercial solutions following later in the year.

LPWA networks are designed for machine-to-machine (M2M) applications that have low data rates, long battery lives and that operate unattended for long periods of time.

The initiative will focus on three proposed licensed 3GPP standards: LTE Evolutions, GSM evolutions and Clean Slate technologies.

LPWA technologies in licensed spectrum can be deployed in a simplified and cost-effective manner, without sacrificing key customer requirements, such as battery lifetime and security, the GSMA argues.

The initiative is backed by AT&T, Alcatel-Lucent, Bell Canada, China Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom, Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson, Etisalat, Huawei, Gemalto, Intel, KDDI, Nokia, NTT DOCOMO, Ooredoo, Orange, Qualcomm Incorporated, Sierra Wireless, Singtel, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, Telenor, Telstra, u-blox and Vodafone.

Such LPWA platforms will support low cost communications modules and supporting networks, potentially allowing for wide area coverage to be added to a device for US$1 incremental bill of materials cost, according to Machina Research.

LPWA will be designed to support low bandwidth communications often consisting of just a hundred or so bytes of information, featuring long battery lives (often up to 10 years from a single AA cell) and wide area coverage (countrywide in the case of some technologies, ‘campus-wide’ in the case of others).

It remains difficult to estimate the revenue or strategic opportunity for mobile service providers. Some have estimated incremental service revenues (access) at about $10 billion annually, for the whole global market.

That in itself would not be an unusually interesting opportunity. More important are the additional  businesses to be built offering the services to various enterprise, industrial and government verticals.

TV White Spaces at Inflection Point in Africa?

IIn terms of the product life cycle, TV white spaces is about to hit an inflection point in its adoption curve, in Africa, if Gartner analysts are correct about its present state of development.

In Africa, TV white spaces is viewed by Gartner analysts as being nearly at the stage of development where its value is understood, and commercial deployment begins, after a period of inflated and premature expectations.

Gartner expects TV white spaces to reach widespread deployment in two to five years, as a result.

source: Gartner

Will LTE-U, MuLTEfire or LAA Boost Mobile Operator Internet Access Revenues?

As always is the case, contestants in the telecom services business will use tools in ways viewed as helpful to their revenue models. Upstarts trying to take market share are more likely to try disruptive tactics. Market leaders are more likely to seek ways to directly monetize new technologies and platforms.

In other words, attackers are likely to “give away value and features” if it helps them grow share, while leaders are more likely to want to try and charge for new value and features to directly boost average revenue per account.

Ways to bond capacity from mobile--Long Term Evolution (4G) and coming fifth generation (5G)--are likely to follow that pattern.

T-Mobile US, for example, already is exploring ways to use pre-standard Long Term Evolution aggregation of mobile and Wi-Fi assets. In part, that is because T-Mobile US arguably has fewer assets in the network coverage area, compared to AT&T and Verizon.

So bonding its mobile network assets with any available Wi-Fi will improve user experience, giving customers an experience equivalent to, or better than, having a mobile network infrastructure that is more developed (capacity and geographic coverage).

As would any challenger, T-Mobile US might see bonding of mobile and Wi-Fi assets as a way to monetize the feature indirectly, in the form of greater customer numbers, if other competitors try and do so.

In other words, if some of its leading competitors did try to meter all access (mobile only or using Wi-Fi bonded assets such as LTE-Universal or License Assisted Access), T-Mobile US likely would refrain, to create marketing differentiation from the other carriers.

To some extent, the current interest on the part of mobile operators to combine access assets across Wi-Fi and Long Term Evolution and all subsequent mobile networks (fifth generation and beyond) is a play to boost the profitability of a current revenue stream, namely mobile Internet access.

The prevailing model for mobile Internet access is the purchase of a bucket of usage. Bonded mobile plus Wi-Fi access, in principle, creates an ability to bill for Wi-Fi usage the same as mobile usage, without having to build and operate the access assets.

In other words, users would be charged for use of LTE-U or LAA or MuLTEfire access as though the consumption occurred on the mobile network.

Offload of mobile device traffic to Wi-Fi generally is seen as a positive by mobile operators, as it often results in better user experience, while not debiting mobile data allowances.

The ability to combine mobile and Wi-Fi access assets might turn on the potential revenue upside, however.

Compared to a scenario where users switch to Wi-Fi for access, not using the mobile network at all, Long Term Evolution-Universal (license assisted access or Qualcomm’s MulLTEfire) could represent some incremental ability on the part of a mobile service provider to directly bill for Wi-Fi usage.

Of course, that also was the hope when mobile operators launched Long Term Evolution as well, so nothing is assured. As it turned out, operators generally are unable to charge any premium for LTE access, compared to 3G.

It might turn out that most consumers continue to simply switch to Wi-Fi, whenever possible, rather than relying on mobile network access.

TV White Spaces Moves Closer in U.S. Market

TV white spaces moved a bit closer to reality in the United States as the Federal Communications Commission issued new rules on the upcoming 600-MHz spectrum auctions that will enable TV white spaces nationwide, creating technical rules for use of the duplex gap, guard bands, 600 MHz service band and channel 37.

As always, where it comes to license-exempt spectrum, concern about interference issues is a reason for concern. It also is fair to note that such expressed concerns also represent contestant business issues.

Where entities that benefit from use of licensed spectrum will express concerns about interference from additional license-exempt services, so entities that benefit from license-exempt spectrum will raise issues about potential interference from licensed entities.

Precisely how much TV white spaces spectrum will be available in any specific market will vary. But TV white spaces potentially can be used in channels 14 to 20. In principle, that means more than 50 MHz of new spectrum could be made available for TV white spaces.