Mereja

Category: Telecom

  • Mary Meeker: Mobile Internet Will Soon Overtake Fixed Internet

    Mary Meeker of Morgan Stanley isn’t just any Internet analyst. She was covering the sector when the brokerage firm was the lead underwriter for Netscape Communications’ initial public offering in 1995, was dubbed the “Queen of the Net” by Barron’s magazine in 1998 and was covering the space in 2004, when Morgan Stanley helped launch the Google IPO. Now a managing director at Morgan Stanley and head of the global technology research team, she has released her latest massively detailed “State of the Internet” report, which she has been putting out periodically since 1995. She presented the report during an event this afternoon at Google, which was streamed live as part of the Events@Google series.

    And what does Meeker see in her crystal ball this year? Two overwhelming trends that will affect consumers, the hardware/infrastructure industry and the commercial potential of the web: mobile and social networking. Such a conclusion is hardly earth-shattering news to GigaOM readers, for we have been following these trends over the past year or two, but Meeker puts some pretty large numbers next to those trends, and looks at the shifts that will (or are likely to) take place in related industries such as communications hardware. She also compares where the rest of the developed world is in terms of mobile communications and social networking with Japan. Again, not a radically different approach to the one many tech forecasters take, but Meeker has the weight of some considerable research chops on her side.

    The Morgan Stanley analyst says that the world is currently in the midst of the fifth major technology cycle of the past half a century. The previous four were the mainframe era of the 1950s and 60s, the mini-computer era of the 1970s and the desktop Internet era of the 80s. The current cycle is the era of the mobile Internet, she says — predicting that within the next five years “more users will connect to the Internet over mobile devices than desktop PCs.” As she puts it on one of the slides in the report: “Rapid Ramp of Mobile Internet Usage Will be a Boon to Consumers and Some Companies Will Likely Win Big (Potentially Very Big) While Many Will Wonder What Just Happened.”

    Meeker says that mobile Internet usage is ramping up substantially faster than desktop Internet usage did, a view she and her team arrived at by comparing the adoption rates of iPhone/iPod touch to that of AOL and Netscape in the early 1990s. According to Meeker, adoption of the Apple devices is taking place more than 11 times faster that of AOL, and several times as fast as that of Netscape. Helping to drive this is 3G technology, which Morgan Stanley says recently hit an “inflection point” by being available to more than 20 percent of the world’s cellular users (although penetration is only 7 percent in Central/South America and 13 percent in Asia/Pacific — excluding Japan, where it’s 96 percent).

    But that mobile boom will take its toll on carriers, Meeker says, because mobile Internet use is all about data. The average cell-phone usage pattern is 70 percent voice, while the average iPhone is 45 percent voice. At NTT DoCoMo, data usage accounts for 90 percent of network traffic. The analyst says her team expects mobile data traffic to increase by almost 4,000 percent by 2014, for a cumulative annual growth rate of more than 100 percent. Such numbers will likely strike fear into the hearts of carriers, but joy into the hearts of equipment suppliers and mobile service companies.

    One of the implications of mobile access is a growth in ecommerce, says Meeker, featuring things such as location-based services, time-based offers, mobile coupons, push notifications, etc. In China, the success of social network Tencent proves that virtual goods can be a big business, she says — virtual goods sales accounted for $2.2 billion worth of the company’s revenue in 2009 and $24 in annual revenue per user. Online commerce and paid services made up 32 percent of mobile revenue in Japan in 2008, up from just 14 percent in 2000. Meeker’s report suggests that the rest of the world — which is still below the 14 percent-mark — could see much the same trajectory over the next 10 years.

    Meeker says that users are more willing to pay for content on mobile devices than they are on desktops for a number of reasons, including:

    * Easy-to-Use/Secure Payment Systems — embedded systems like carrier billing and iTunes allow real-time payment

    * Small Price Tags -– most content and subscriptions carry sub-$5 price tags

    * Walled Gardens Reduce Piracy -– content exists in proprietary environments, difficult to get pirated content onto mobile devices

    * Established Store Fronts -– carrier decks and iTunes store allow easy discovery and purchase

    * Personalization -– more important on mobiles than desktops

    On the social networking side, Meeker’s report notes that social network use is bigger than email in terms of both aggregate numbers of users and time spent, and is still growing rapidly. Social networking passed email in terms of time spent in 2007, hitting about 100 billion minutes/month globally — it’s now twice that — and passed email in terms of raw user numbers in July of 2009, with more than 800 million. Given the rate at which Facebook has been growing, that number is probably now closer to a billion. Meeker attributes social networking’s success to the fact that it’s a “unified communications + multimedia creation tool/repository in your pocket.” And Japan’s experience makes how crucial mobile is to that equation: Mixi, one of the country’s largest social networks, has seen its mobile page views grow to 72 percent of the total from just 17 percent three years ago.

    Post and thumbnail photos courtesy Flickr user Shapeshift.

  • Comcast Didn’t Kill Net Neutrality Last Week

    A federal court of appeals said last Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission wasn’t justified when it censured Comcast back in 2008 for blocking peer-to-peer files. At the time, I said the ruling could call into question the FCC’s ability to regulate several aspects of high-speed Internet service, including network neutrality, but after talking last week to people in D.C., it became clear that the consensus is in fact that regulations guaranteeing net neutrality will survive, and the FCC will likely begin a proceeding to solidify its authority by reclassifying Internet access.

    The issue isn’t that Comcast sued the FCC, but that the FCC was on weak footing thanks to previous decisions it made back in 2002 and 2005. In that series of rulings, the FCC decided that various forms of high-speed Internet access should not be classified as a transport service like a telephone line is, but rather as an information service, like Google or Facebook. In 2002, the FCC classified cable as an information service, and did the same with DSL in 2005, wireless broadband in 2007 and broadband over power lines in 2008.  The agency decided that Internet access was more than transport because ISPs also offered email accounts, portals, storage and other technologies on top of the transport layer.

    In a GigaOM Pro report published late Friday (sub req’d), I lay out the options the FCC has before it from a regulatory perspective, and explain how we got here and where the FCC will go next. I also outline how the ISPs will likely push for Congress to get involved, rather than see their internet access reclassified as transport, because that reclassification gives the FCC more regulatory authority over their pipes.

    So keep an eye on the FCC, because we’re likely to see it issue a Notice of Inquiry in the coming weeks on the topic of reclassifying high-speed Internet access (not broadband, which may encompass the services such as email and storage that led the FCC to classify the offering as an information service rather than transport in the first place). That will undoubtedly be followed by months of comments and inflammatory rhetoric about ISPs already being committed to net neutrality and arguments saying that the FCC wants to regulate “the Internet” (it’s trying to regulate access to it, not the web itself).

    Once it gets through the reclassification process, which could take at least six months, the net neutrality proceedings will stay open and the FCC will likely take up the topic once its authority is firmly in place. Also, expect the FCC to follow any of its orders reclassifying Internet access as a transport service with later proceedings where it says it won’t regulate certain aspects of high-speed Internet access such as tariffs and peering agreements.

    Amid this wonky debate, keep in mind that regulating communications transport is what the FCC was set up to oversee, and the current Commission apparently intends to do it. It’s not going to be incredibly aggressive about it (otherwise it could issue a Declaratory Order saying that high speed Internet access is a transport service without going through the comment period) but eventually net neutrality regulations that do contain provisions allowing ISPs to manage their networks will be passed. So Comcast didn’t kill net neutrality, but it did delay it for a while.

  • The FCC Wants to Test Your Broadband Speed Limit

    The Federal Communications Commission wants to know how fast your broadband speed is, so it’s looking for volunteers to install gear that will provide accurate readings of it. In a blog post today the agency said it has chosen SamKnows Ltd., which also worked to establish speed tests for British telecom regulator Ofcom, to help it in its task. The FCC will issue a public notice seeking more input on the process in “the coming days,” and will also detail how people can volunteer to install the gear in “the next few weeks.”

    Gathering quality data plays an important role in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, acting as the agency’s only solution to the relative lack of competition in most U.S. broadband markets, so this move to install actual hardware on people’s modems is a big deal.

    It’s part of a multipronged effort to gather data on broadband quality, access and speed. Others efforts include getting consumers to go to the FCC’s broadband.gov site to test their speeds and a partnership with comScore, thought that’s been criticized as being fairly unscientific. The agency has also expanded the information it collects from ISPs, but some of its ability to force carriers to give up that information has been thrown in doubt after the FCC lost a legal battle against Comcast over its authority to regulate aspects of high-speed Internet access. So this effort and the eventual volunteers might be the FCC’s best hope of gathering data that will stand up to court fights and help defend consumers from anti-competitive practices — at least while the current commissioners are at the FCC and want to fight for consumers.

    Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

    Who Will Profit From Broadband Innovation?

  • Battling mobile internet congestion

    Whether it is a BlackBerry, iPhone or USB modem, social networking applications like Facebook and Twitter, or the network-clogging video that has made its way on to cell phones, the thirst for data means mobile internet has never been so important.

    Data traffic surpassed voice traffic on wireless networks for the first time in December 2009 and Cisco estimates that mobile data traffic grew 160% during the past year. It also forecasts mobile data traffic will increase by 39 times by 2014.

    For investors and services providers, this means a growing need for solutions to manage the needs of more users doing more things more often with more devices.

    “Wireless networks are starting to buckle under the load of Mobile Internet traffic,” the technology team at Dundee Securities says in a new report. “Thus we believe that companies that can provide solutions to network congestion and carry traffic at a lower cost per bit will face a robust product cycle, favourable pricing, and growing markets.”

    The analysts not only believe that mobile traffic will continue to increase faster than capacity can be added for many years to come, but this load will also grow quicker than the revenue associated with it. While telecom carriers are testing and deploying a variety of options to address the issue, Dundee notes that there is no silver bullet for the congestion problem. However, if carriers do deploy more of the solutions the firm highlights below, the analysts expect them to see higher profits (either through lower capex or stronger revenues) in three to four years.

    • Faster networks – 3G may squeeze more data per second out of wireless spectrum than 2G does, but next-generation 4G or LTE technology is even more effective.
    • More spectrum – There is enough spectrum in North American and Europe to nearly double mobile capacity before other parts of the spectrum will be needed.
    • Cell splitting – This process of breaking an existing mobile cell into two or more new cells requires finding land to put up new towers, adding more backhaul and purchasing more base stations.
    • Offloading – Switching a wireless connection from a large, congested cell base station to a smaller and faster uncongested micro cell (typically WiFi).
    • Next Generation Backhaul – Dundee believes most incumbent carriers in North America and Asia will replace their copper base station connections with fibre over the next five years, since fibre “offers almost unlimited capacity and very high reliability.” While the majority of backhaul bottlenecks are in highly dense urban environments that have a high concentration of fibre, microwave backhaul solutions offer an alternative with much higher capacity than copper, but less than fibre.
    • Policy management – Systems that know a subscriber’s billing plan, location, device and applications, as well as characteristics of the network. Rules are then applied to reduce costs and better monetize traffic.
    • Next Generation Billing – Systems that do things like ask users if they want to buy more capacity when they hit their monthly limit, or offer the option to pay a premium for priority network access.
    • Optimization – Options like compression, which sends the same information using less data, and shrinking web pages to make them less data intensive for smartphones.

    “There is a whole world of applications out there running on the Wired Internet that are just waiting for enough mobile bandwidth to migrate over to the Mobile Internet,” Dundee says. “In our view, this almost insures that mobile network congestion will be with us for many years despite significant capacity increases.”

    Jonathan Ratner

  • Motorola Titanium XT800

    South Korea will have another Android 2.0 device soon. The Motorola Titanium, which looks similar to other Motorola devices like the Cliq and Cliq XT, is also known as the XT800. There will be two different versions of this handset available.

    The two versions will be the XT800C and XT800W. The XT800C will be a 2G CDMA handset and the XT800W will feature UMTS. SK Telecom will be the new home for these devices. Also, these phones will feature a 480 x 854 pixel touch screen display, Wi-Fi, 3.5mm headset jack along with a 5MP autofocus camera with D1 video recording.

    Click here to view the embedded video.

    [via smartphonenow.kr,mobileburn]

  • The iAds are coming – Apple iPhone OS 4.0

    iAd - Apple iPhone OS 4.0

    Very good coverage of iPhone OS 4.0 from gdgt “Live iPhone OS 4.0 event coverage“.

    Filed under: advertising, Business, Telecom, united states, World

  • New litigation signals buying opportunity at Wi-LAN: Wellington West

    Wi-LAN Inc. (WIN/TSX), the tiny Ottawa-based licensor of technology patents, has taken some major wireless players to court over a dispute surrounding a single Bluetooth patent. The company claims Apple, Sony, Motorola and others "continue" to infringe on its patent, which assists in enabling short-range communication between smartphones and other mobile devices, and moved Thursday to sue in an eastern Texas court. Sean Peasgood, analyst at Wellington West Capital Markets Inc. believes the move is "further evidence" that Wi-LAN is confident financial settlements will follow, and told clients the stock, trading at a modest 12% premium to his base case valuation, is now a Strong Buy. His 12-month price target is $3.70, or a yield of more than 30% from Thursday's trading price.

    Jamie Sturgeon

  • Comcast vs FCC: In Battle For Net Neutrality, Did the Courts Hand Comcast a Pyrrhic Victory?

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed Comcast a victory against the Federal Communication’ Commissions today, but in winning its appeal, Comcast may have just set off a war — one it could wind up losing. As we noted, a three-judge panel took issue with the FCC’s attempts to regulate cable’s ability to manage its networks, not simply because there wasn’t a formal rule-making process in place, but because the FCC appears to have overstepped its bounds when it tried to regulate how a cable company managed its network.

    Stifel Nicolaus, an investment bank, lays it out well in a research note:

    Today’s ruling is destabilizing as it could effectively free broadband providers from FCC regulation over broadband, including net neutrality, rules requiring transparency letting customers know what actual speeds they are receiving, the ability to prioritize emergency communications, consumer privacy protections (though these could presumably be imposed to a certain degree by the FTC). But it could lead the FCC to reclassify broadband services as the more heavily regulated “telecommunications service” under the traditional Title II – which the Bells, cable, and wireless companies (e.g., T, VZ, CMCSA) strongly oppose.

    So while this decision does throw the FCC’s current network neutrality rule-making into disarray, it also could affect the agency’s attempts to regulate a wide variety of broadband issues, including how broadband providers tell consumers what their true Internet speeds are, as well as how the agency can enact universal service fund reform and set privacy rules on the Internet.

    What the FCC needs to figure out is whether or not it should assert its authority narrowly for each issue it is trying to address, and risk its authority being challenged each time (possibly in court) or if Congress needs to step in to grant the FCC more power. Already several consumer organizations have issued statements about the ruling, such as Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge:

    “The FCC should immediately start a proceeding bringing Internet access service back under some common carrier regulation similar to that used for decades. Some parts of the Communications Act, which prohibit unjust and unreasonable discrimination, could be applied here. The Commission would not have to impose a heavy regulatory burden on the telephone and cable companies, yet consumers could once again have the benefit of legal protections and the Broadband Plan could go forward.”

    The FCC itself is being coy on the reclassification issue, saying:

    “The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies — all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers — on a solid legal foundation. Today’s court decision invalidated the prior Commission’s approach to preserving an open Internet. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”

    Apparently everyone — even Comcast, which originally sued the agency — is in favor of a “free and open Internet.” Comcast, which declared itself vindicated, was careful to point out that it was in favor of the open Internet principles, despite its original P2P blocking efforts:

    Comcast remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.

    Other major ISPs have also been quick to favor the existing broadband principles (notably those do not include network neutrality provisions on wireless networks and require ISPs to be transparent about any network management). AT&T, in what looks to be a bid for self-regulation by ISPs, suggested that the FCC’s censuring of Comcast wasn’t needed because Comcast had stopped the throttling on its own (although it did lie about what it was doing, pack hearings on the topic in its favor and behave poorly throughout the process). AT&T attributed its statement to Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs:

    “If, after assessing its options under Title I, the FCC feels it needs to clarify its jurisdiction as a result of today’s decision, we hope the issue would be referred to the U.S. Congress which alone confers the Commission’s legal authority. In any circumstance, AT&T pledges to work constructively with the FCC as it considers these questions.”

    Verizon’s statement — attributed to Randal S. Milch, executive VP and general counsel — doesn’t emphasize the need for Congress to get involved, despite one of its top policy wonks calling for Congress to figure out new ways to regulate broadband last month:

    “The court recognized that the FCC does have Title I ancillary authority over Internet access. In this case, the FCC simply failed to link its actions to its statutory responsibilities. The FCC’s authority supplements the various other consumer protection and competition laws that apply to all members of the Internet ecosystem.”

    As this devolves into a fight between lawyers, it’s important to realize what’s at stake amid all of the fancy language, namely the ability for content to pass relatively unimpeded over the pipes that provide your broadband access. At stake as well is who gets to make the rules that govern those pipes, no matter if the ISP is a telco, a cable company or even Google.

    Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Steakpinball

  • Scotty, We Need More Bandwidth!

    A slew of news out this morning — ranging from AT&T’s $1 billion expansion of its network to Cisco’s update of its unified computing system — highlights the continued need to invest in networking. We’re piling on compute power and boosting storage at a much faster pace than our networking infrastructure can handle — both inside the data center (GigaOM Pro sub req’d) and on the long haul networks running between (GigaOM Pro sub req’d)  them. There isn’t really a Moore’s law that pertains to networking.

    Which is why in some cases, it’s just a matter of plunking down more cash to add gear and perhaps undersea capacity, as AT&T said it plans to do for business networks. Cisco is taking a doubled-side approach to the networking bottleneck by providing servers that can deliver faster and easier networking inside virtualized data centers with an upgrade to its unified computing system, as well as building routers for long haul and edge networks that can handle a whole lotta terabytes. Last month Marvell upped the data center networking ante by announcing 40 gigabit Ethernet chips for when 10 won’t do.

    And back to the long haul networks, Cisco sold its massive ASR-9000 core network router to NTT Communications Corp. last week,and today, EETimes quotes NTT CTO Doug Junkins as explaining why isn’t pleased by the higher prices for advanced networking gear (the optics components are 10-30 times more expensive than for 10 GigE gear), but is ready to take the plunge because of customer demand:

    “We are a wholesale IP transit provider, and our highest growth is in 10G Ethernet ports for new customers,” said Junkins who is also vice president of IP development for NTT Communications’ business network unit. “We have customers today bundling more than ten 10G Ethernets from our backbone to their net, so the day 100G Ethernet is available, we will start provisioning for it,” he said.

    It’s not just consumers downloading video or the love of smartphones that’s causing bandwidth demand to skyrocket, but the need for access to software, platforms and infrastructure as a service by businesses and our increasing reliance on the network for improving productivity and seeding innovation.

  • Are Harbinger’s LTE Network Plans a Red Herring?

    A New York-based private equity firm’s plans to build out an open nationwide 4G wireless network may simply be a facade aimed at pumping up the value of the spectrum held by its portfolio companies, according to several satellite industry analysts. Harbinger Capital Partners unveiled its LTE network plans last Friday as part of its bid for FCC approval to take over satellite company, SkyTerra. But I, and others, have remained skeptical that the network will ever come to fruition.

    “I don’t think we’re going to see an LTE network built by Harbinger,” said John L. Stone, Jr., a director with Near Earth LLC, a boutique investment bank that has a specialty practice focused on satellites. Stone expects Harbinger’s moves with the FCC  to result in a sale of spectrum holdings rather than an open 4G network. However, as a condition of its takeover of SkyTerra, the FCC prohibited Harbinger from selling the spectrum to AT&T or Verizon or letting traffic from the nation’s two largest carriers comprise more than 25 percent of its traffic.

    Tim Farrar, an analyst at TMF Associates, has similar doubts, surmising in a report published today that Harbinger may in fact be pleased by the objections to the FCC conditions associated with its SkyTerra deal that AT&T has filed. Farrar writes:

    On the other hand, given that AT&T is challenging these conditions, it may conceivably be the case that Harbinger has given the FCC the rope to hang itself by: if the conditions are declared illegal, then it would presumably be much harder for the FCC to oppose a sale of the spectrum to AT&T (perhaps even before Harbinger launches commercial service). In the meantime, by declaring its intention to actually build the network, Harbinger has forced AT&T and Verizon to take ATC a lot more seriously than they have done in the last few years, and perhaps even to rethink whether they want to invest in ATC spectrum, something that the leading cellular operators have apparently dismissed on previous occasions.

    Harbinger has access to 53 MHz of spectrum and the total spectrum in the MSS band where it has investments adds up to 90 MHz. That’s a significant chunk of the 500 MHz the FCC plans to free up as part of its National Broadband Plan — and the spectrum would be available today if those pesky conditions were removed. If nothing else, the FCC order and Harbinger’s plans have suddenly made the big carriers take notice of the value those airwaves may have — something that Harbinger no doubt is happy about.

    Right now there are a lot of people throwing water on this deal, and few defending it on the record, which doesn’t inspire confidence. Perhaps Harbinger will release more information on its network partners, or the FCC will go on the record about how impossible it will be for Harbinger to flip its spectrum. Until then, I’m keeping my excitement in check.

  • WIND Mobile Calgary service review & Interview with WIND CEO Ken Campbell

    This is a review of my WIND Mobile experiences in Calgary since joining WIND 20 days ago on March 11th, 2010 plus a phone interview with WIND’s CEO Ken Campbell (see below) where Ken very candidly answered my questions.

    Special thanks to Ken for talking to me after WIND launched in Ottawa last Friday.

    ***

    The Switch

    I was a Bell Mobility customer for over 10 years, but dropped calls/poor voice quality, non-responsive customer services, and expensive new plans (for the values) stopped me from signing another 3-year contract with Bell.

    I also want to give WIND a try after having such a high hope for them when reporting of the news of the government overturning the CRTC decision (where I interviewed Tony) and the WIND launch in Calgary (where I interviewed Ken and Chris) in Dec 2009.

    Join WIND (Calgary)

    WIND Mobile Review Background

    Keep this in mind when you read this review:

    I do trust WIND is working hard to resolve the problems and issues. And as you will hear in my phone interview with Ken, WIND is now my only mobile service provider, so if WIND goes down, I go down with it. So I fully expect WIND to deliver on their promises (soon).

    WIND Mobile Calgary experiences review

    Here are my WIND experiences in chronological order.

    1) Pre-Signup

    – The WIND website (see this price/value comparison chart) and the few WIND customer service reps I talked to were helpful.

    – I signed up with WIND knowing fully their current limited coverage (Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, and Ottawa was added last week). But I also know and believe WIND is working hard to add additional cities before end of 2010 (cities like Vancouver).

    Overall comment & rating: The WIND reps were pleasant to talk to. Nice to see WIND’s openness in accepting customers’ ideas/comments and keep an active blog dialogue. So, overall, I say I received good services from WIND.

    2) Signup Day

    – The Blockbuster store kiosk was quite professional looking and it blended in well with the rest of the Blockbuster location.

    – Would be nice if the salesperson had a bit more in-depth knowledge of the basic features of the phones (in my case, the Samsung Gravity 2).

    – After I signed up, unfortunately, this WIND location, didn’t have the proper and up-to-date software to transfer phone numbers from my old cell phone to my new phone. The 15+ minutes wait didn’t do any good as the rep didn’t have the computer privilege to install the new software update.

    – I asked WIND to port my existing phone number over. And that gave me my first taste of inconsistent information and services. You see, I was told previously on the phone by a WIND agent that porting of existing phone number will take less than 4 hours. At the store, I was told the porting process might take 24 to 48 hours even I bought my old phone bill so they could have the exact information need to do a smooth phone number porting.

    – By the way, this may be a bit of a speculation but if Blockbuster was to go bankrupt as some in the business community were talking about, I don’t know how will WIND adjust and how quickly.

    Overall comment & rating: I had expected more from WIND and was a bit disappointed.

    3) Ongoing experiences

    WIND was launched in Calgary over 3 months ago in mid-Dec 2009, so I thought all of the basic and key problems/issues should/would have been solved already. Unfortunately, there remain to be some key problems.

    3a) Static/Noise

    There were random static/noise during phone calls since day one. Looking at the bright side, the frequency of the static/noise seems to be dropping in the last few days, so I hope all the static will soon be gone completely. Good voice quality is so basic that it is disappointing to experience static/noise.

    3b) Dropped Calls

    Some local and long distance calls were dropped in the middle of a conversation. And these dropped calls have been very annoying and even more unacceptable than the static/noise.

    3c) Unable to make calls

    In two separate cases, once when driving and once when not moving, in both cases I were well-within the Calgary WIND covered area (i.e. not at the edge of the network), I was unable to make calls. In the case while I was driving, I kept redialling for 5 times within 3 minutes but got no connection even the screen said “WIND Home”.

    3d) “Limited Service”

    Well, it wasn’t nice when one night I saw my phone display turn from “WIND Home” to “Limited Service” out of the blue. Sure, it went back to “WIND Home” 5-10 minutes later, but that was a bad experience at 8:30pm.

    Limited Service (WIND Calgary)

    3e) The unlimited calling

    To end on something positive, it was nice to have unlimited anytime minutes and also unlimited Canada-wide calling with no long-distance charge for the $45 plan that I have.

    Overall comment & rating: I’ve downwardly adjusted my expectations of WIND’s service quality. Yes, I am disappointed of the problems I’ve faced so far but I am willing to give WIND a little bit of time to work out its problems and improve.

    Here is a telling question I can ask myself:

    Would I rather have WIND resolved all its technical issues before launching in Calgary? My answer will be, “Absolutely NOT!” You see, I would rather endure some short term service problems that will/should improve in time, instead of being locked-up in another 3-year contract with any of the existing service providers.

    ***

    Phone Interview with WIND’s CEO Ken Campbell

    After WIND launched in Ottawa last Friday, Ken was very helpful and gave me a chance to interview him to talk about some of the serious problems I have experienced with WIND. I want to thank Ken again for his time and his candid answers.

    Here is my phone interview (mp3) with Ken (or you can stream the interview here) where I asked Ken about many of the problems I experienced in Calgary and also about WIND’s expansion plans, etc.

    ***

    Concluding thoughts

    On the day I signed up with WIND, I honestly felt and wanted to post the line,

    “Free at last! Free at last! I am free from Bell at last!“

    Sure, I wish WIND was perfect and I didn’t have any voice problems. But in the long run, I am very happy that I did not sign another contract and locked myself into another 3-year jail sentence with anyone.

    Since WIND doesn’t use contract and penalties to lockup customers, it has to earn my business every month. And WIND has to show its customers that it is working hard to improve the services. Unless WIND improves its call qualities and its services quickly, it may not be able to keep its existing customers and recruit more customers.

    If you are a WIND customer in Calgary or thinking of joining WIND in Calgary, please leave a comment to share your thoughts.

    Filed under: Business, Calgary, Canada, Internet, InterviewByKempton, InterviewByKempton-Business, Telecom, Toronto

  • AT&T Asks FCC to Change Its Mind Over Harbinger

    Updated: AT&T today filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission asking it to reconsider some of the conditions associated with an order the agency issued last Friday allowing Harbinger Capital Partners to take over a satellite company and its spectrum assets. The move means the drama in the nation’s capital as AT&T and Verizon  gear up to fight plans by the New York private equity firm to build a competing 4G wireless network has begun.

    Update: AT&T emailed to make sure our readers know that the carrier is not against Harbinger building out its network, despite my interpretation. The spokeswoman wrote, “We have no issue with and did not oppose the Harbinger/SkyTerra transaction. Furthermore, we have no objection to the wholesale wireless network that Harbinger has committed to build.”

    The FCC approval of Harbinger’s buy of Skyterra helps the private equity firm consolidate spectrum, and sets in motion the PE firm’s plans to build a wholesale wireless network that would cover 260 million people by the end of 2015. But as part of the approval, the FCC set conditions that prohibit Harbinger and Skyterra from allowing AT&T and Verizon to use the spectrum without its approval, and that traffic from the nation’s two largest carriers cannot comprise more than 25 percent of the total network traffic.

    The conditions were put in place to ensure a competitive wholesale network that any buyer could access, but for now, those conditions are galvanizing AT&T’s lobbying efforts into high gear. My question is, if AT&T and Verizon are upset over the conditions designed to keep them off this network and from acquiring this spectrum, how will they react if the FCC takes steps to try to remove the satellite requirement associated with the spectrum that Harbinger now owns?

    Skyterra, and now Harbinger, own spectrum in the MSS band. Thanks to a 2003 FCC decision, companies that own spectrum in that band have the ability to use that spectrum to build out a combined terrestrial and satellite network. The satellite requirement has kept most of the MSS spectrum owners from building out an actual competitive mobile broadband network, but Harbinger apparently thinks the time is right.

    Perhaps it’s because the National Broadband Plan, in the section on the MSS spectrum, hints that the FCC could take a new look at the satellite gating requirement that has held the development of a combined satellite and terrestrial network back since the original order. Tim Farrar, an MSS analyst, certainly thinks that’s the case, although if we think AT&T is mad now, just wait until the FCC attempts any kind of changes to that original 2003 order. I just don’t think this is going to end well for Harbinger — or for folks eager to see an open, competitive wireless network.

    Image courtesy of NASA.

  • Why Google & Verizon Won’t Be BFFs Forever

    Google and Verizon have teamed up once again, with its CEOs penning a jointly authored opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that praises certain aspects of the National Broadband Plan. The article, from Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon and Google’s Eric Schmidt, manages to gloss over areas where the two firms differ, and instead highlights the fact that both favor the plan’s proposals for faster speeds, its emphasis on universal access, as well as its push to move broadband deeper into the health, education and energy management fields.

    This isn’t the first time Verizon and the search giant have worked together. They also joined forces to file joint comments on network neutrality (although they filed separately as well). I’ve long thought that it was more interesting to see where the two firms differ (much of their agreement on the net neutrality issue was superficial, especially when it came to wireless networks ), so why are they so visible teaming up?

    It’s partly because neither firm wants to get the FCC even more involved in regulating them — Google is worried about the agency attempting to police Internet applications and Verizon, about its focus on anything above transmission itself. This debate in itself is enough to drive both firms closer, but there are other theories about their budding relationship.

    I’ll start with the We-Both-Have-Fiber theory. This one is almost silly in my mind, because it views Verizon as a company focused on delivering fat pipes to all as a some sort of beneficent gesture, rather than a clear-eyed business decision to get ahead of the competition when it comes to broadband speeds, while making sure it doesn’t have to share its pipes with others. Verizon has in fact slowed its fiber expansion, and notably, has a history of dumping the lines that it doesn’t want.

    This theory also implies that Google is a fiber provider, when in reality all it’s planning to do is wire up 50,000-500,000 people — not to become an ISP, but to hopefully show the FCC what an open competitive broadband market looks like. If the FCC or municipalities try to emulate the Google experiment or learn enough from it to build out their own networks, Verizon isn’t going to be too thrilled.

    This leads me to the second popular theory — I call it The-Enemy-of-My-Enemy-Is-My-Friend theory — which views the Google-Verizon friendship as a counterbalance to that of AT&T-Apple. I think there’s something to this on both sides. For Google, the Apple universe is threatening because Apple is trying to vertically integrate the world of mobile computing from the device all the way up to the apps. Meanwhile, Google is trying for a more horizontally integrated world that looks like the PC universe, with various partners being able to pick and choose what they want.

    Verizon, having realized that it must open up some of its networks a bit and be less vertically integrated, will help push the vertically integrated model where it sees benefits to itself. Plus, since it doesn’t have a monopoly on the iPhone, with Google it has found an ally against AT&T, a rival on the wireless side and a foil on the wireline side whose slower DSL speeds can make Verizon’s FiOS business look good.

    Unlike the relationship between Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs, which leads to paparazzi-style photos and coverage of the two meeting for coffee, the friendship between Schmidt and Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam is less remarked upon (although the Wall Street Journal took notice in December). However, while the two are friends in public and in the occasional FCC filing, the mutual interests of these two companies may be sorely tested when it comes time for the FCC to really dig into net neutrality, as well as when Congress and the FCC get into figuring out how to regulate the web.

    Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

    Google’s Mobile Strategy: Understanding the Nexus One

  • Vodafone to Verizon: Pay, Buy or Merge – Your Call!

    Verizon Wireless is the child of a joint venture between Verizon Communications and Vodafone, but it appears that the parent on the other side of the Atlantic wants to change the custody arrangement. The Financial Times reported this weekend that Vodafone, which owns a 45 percent stake in the venture, is putting pressure on Verizon Communications to pony up some cash — the result of which could lead to a merger between the two.

    Up until 2005, Verizon Wireless paid a cash dividend to Vodafone shareholders; then it stopped, saying it needed to pay down debt. But with the debt repayments scheduled to end soon, Vodafone is putting the pressure on. The British communications firm, says it wants cash rather than the paper gain associated with the increase in value of its Verizon Wireless stake. Vodafone has been angling for a return of the dividend for a while, but the Financial Times offers up analyst commentary showing that because of faltering performance at Verizon Communications, Vodafone may now hold the upper hand in this battle. The FT reports:

    Verizon Communications paid a dividend worth $5.3bn in 2009 and Bernstein analysts said that problems at the US group’s fixed-line phone business meant that it will need to tap Verizon Wireless’ cash so as to maintain its shareholder remuneration.

    Craig Moffett and Robin Bienenstock, who cover US and European telecoms companies respectively for Bernstein, said in a research note: “For Verizon, time is running out. Vittorio Colao holds the cards. And he seems to know it.”

    This leaves the parent companies with three options: Verizon Wireless resumes its dividend payments, Vodafone and Verizon Communications merge or Vodafone sells its stake in Verizon Wireless. The analysts above think a dividend is coming, especially since Verizon Communications maintains that it could pay out its own dividend in 2010 and 2011 without any help from the Verizon Wireless unit. Vodafone may make Verizon Communications put its money where its mouth is.

    Image courtesy of Flickr user Henrique Vicente

  • Myriad turns Java into Android apps – Video

    Android just got access to a whole new library of pre-written Java-Based applications. Myriad launched a tool called J2Android earlier last week. This tool can be used to convert thousands of MIDlet applications and games already on the market and allows Dalvik to run them.


    (more…)

  • PE Firm Plans Open LTE Network to Challenge AT&T and Verizon

    A New York private equity firm plans to build a multibillion-dollar 4G wireless network that will cover most of the country by 2015. The ambitious plan by Harbinger Capital Partners relies on deploying a Long Term Evolution network over spectrum owned by a few satellite companies — and would create an open wholesale wireless network available to retail companies, PC manufacturers or anyone who wants to offer mobile broadband.

    Last November I wrote that certain satellite companies were visiting Washington hoping to somehow cash in on the 100 MHz of spectrum they collectively have. After reading the FCC order and Harbinger’s plans filed with the FCC on Friday night, it looks like those satellite firms may have found a way thanks to the FCC’s faith in mobile broadband as a means of promoting innovation and competition.

    A Competitive Threat

    The new network will rely initially on 23 MHz spectrum owned by SkyTerra, which is owned by Harbinger, and could later include spectrum from Terrestar Networks, another satellite firm in which Harbinger holds a stake. The Harbinger network could help ensure competition among the major wireless carriers thanks to the conditions the FCC has placed on the spectrum that the private equity firm plans to use as part an agreement to let Harbinger take control of SkyTerra  — namely that SkyTerra has to be a wholesaler, and that traffic from the largest and second-largest wireless carriers in the U.S. cannot comprise more than 25 percent of the traffic over the SkyTerra/Harbinger network. This means AT&T and Verizon could not buy up huge chunks of the network or spectrum to keep others off of it.

    Harbinger’s plans to build out a mobile broadband network stretch all the way back to a 2003 order allowing satellite companies owning spectrum in the L and S bands to build out terrestrial networks in conjunction with their satellite networks. The idea was to offer an alternative to the cellular carriers, but the stringent satellite requirement (that the cell companies lobbied hard for) has proved tough. It’s expensive to launch and build satellites (plus build out a terrestrial network), and any phones working on such a system are pretty clunky. Another strike is unless the satellite companies found a willing terrestrial partner, the initial satellite mobile broadband speeds were too slow.

    However, the FCC has given appears ready to give the satellite spectrum holders a break by relaxing the satellite aspect of the network buildout allowing Harbinger to consolidate so much spectrum in exchange for guarantees about how fast the terrestrial network will be built out. Plus the FCC will enforce the conditions outlined above to ensure that the SkyTerra/Harbinger network is a real alternative to the cellular carriers.

    Harbinger’s LTE Buildout Plans

    The planned network would launch before the third quarter of 2011 and cover 9 million people, with trials set initially for Denver and Phoenix. The next milestone is that 100 million people have to be covered by the end of 2012, 145 million by the end of 2013 and at least 260 million people in the United States by the end of 2015. Harbinger said in its statements to the FCC that all major markets will be installed by the end of the second quarter of 2013.

    However, the 36,000 base stations that Harbinger plans to use, along with the tower sites, backhaul and other gear associated with a terrestrial network will require billions of dollars. Analyst Chris King at Stifel Nicolaus estimates that Verizon’s LTE network will cost about $5 billion to deploy, and Verizon already has some of its network elements in place. Clearwire has also spent billions on its network, with analyst estimates ranging from $3 billion to about $6 billion.

    Harbinger didn’t talk about it’s capital-raising plans, but a spokesman emailed me the following statement:

    Harbinger is in discussions with a number of companies, which we cannot disclose, that provide a variety of services and solutions, but have not finalized anything with any potential partners.

    SkyTerra and Terrestar have been searching without success for partners to help build their terrestrial networks for years, with Intel once being floated as a potential candidate.

    For those spectrum nerds out there, Harbinger says it has access to the following hertz:

    At the outset, the network will have no less than 23 MHz of spectrum, consisting of 8 MHz of 1.4 GHz terrestrial spectrum, access to 5 MHz of 1.6 GHz terrestrial spectrum and 10 MHz of MSS/ATC L-band spectrum. Through a cooperation agreement with Inmarsat and associated waivers of the Commission’s ATC rules, by 2013 Harbinger will have access to an additional 30 MHz of ATC spectrum.

    By 2011, when the SkyTerra network would launch, the nation will have 4G network coverage from Verizon, Clearwire, MetroPCS and AT&T. Clearwire’s cable partners and Sprint seem to be getting some real traction with their customers as resellers of the Clearwire service, an indication that consumers don’t care what mobile broadband provider they buy from, as long as they can get access to the mobile web.

    So in looking at that list and realizing the AT&T and Verizon can’t play, and that Clearwire-Sprint has plenty of spectrum to deploy, the most logical partners for Harbinger’s expansion are likely T-Mobile or Leap. My friend Tim Farrar, a satellite industry analyst who saw the Harbinger action coming weeks ago, thinks Harbinger will hit up T-Mobile. I think he’s right.

    Images courtesy of NASA

  • Phorm Pops Up Again, This Time in Brazil

    Phorm, the controversial startup that delivers targeted ads based on a person’s web surfing, has signed deals with five Internet Service Providers in Brazil. After customer and regulatory outrage in the UK over the idea that ISPs would monitor a person’s web surfing habits through deep packet inspection in order to deliver advertising (and especially that Phorm and BT would trial this intrusive technology without telling subscribers), Phorm went quiet.

    Well, apparently it went to South America and has signed up Estadão, iG, Oi, Terra and UOL — all Brazilian ISPs. It also said in a release today that it’s pre-booked $5.6 million in revenue over an unspecified time frame.  However, I wonder if the landscape regarding both web privacy and deep packet inspection has shifted  since 2008, when much of the controversy erupted over Phorm in the UK and a similar startup known as NebuAd here in the U.S..

    ISPs are using deep packet inspection technologies already, and are poised to use them more in both wireless and wireline networks for usage-based pricing (GigaOM Pro sub req’d), possibly based on the type of applications people are using. At the same time, people are sharing ever more information via services like Foursquare or even Twitter, information that can be mined for advertising.

    I still find the idea of my ISP knowing which web sites I’m visiting creepy, although Google and many other targeted advertising shops clearly know, judging by the Tea children’s clothing ads I see on Tom’s Hardware and Slashdot (I’m guessing most of you don’t see those). Plus, as ISPs are threatened with net neutrality and dumb pipe status, expect them to implement more of these revenue-generating schemes, and justify them by bemoaning the loss of their profits thanks to government regulation.

    Image courtesy of Flickr user Alancleaver_2000

  • Puma and Droga5 promise a more playful breed of mobile phone

    Puma

    Fashion sure has evolved. It’s not enough to wear the latest sneakers or sunglasses anymore. Cell phones have become a fashion statement, too. There’s the Lamborghini phone, the Prada phone and now the Puma phone. The latter is expected to launch in 10 days, according to PumaPhone.com, which houses an interactive slideshow and informational videos on the device. Puma claims it has created the "first mobile phone dedicated to encouraging an active life outside of the phone." According to the apparel company, its phone will use the latest 3G cellular technology, but also have a "playful" side, featuring applications like "icon messaging, sarcastic calculator, scratching turntable [and] easy peasy video calls." Droga5, the agency behind the Puma-phone campaign, says more than 500,000 units have been pre-ordered. Doesn’t seem like a bad start, considering the overly crowded mobile phone market.

    —Posted by Elena Malykhina

  • Is Your Carrier The Fanboy or The Underdog?

    AT&T this morning confirmed that it will add Palm’s Pre Plus and Pixi Plus to its portfolio, in addition to Dell’s Aero, an Android-based handset set to hit the market “soon.” But while the nation’s second-largest carrier will be the only U.S. operator to support every major smartphone OS, its strategy can still be summed up in one word: iPhone. Here’s a quick breakdown of the tier-one carriers and their current strategies:

    The Fanboy: Apple’s iconic gadget has been AT&T’s savior over the last year or so, even if its popularity has exposed the carrier’s inferior network. Wireless Intelligence reported a few weeks ago that AT&T saw 3.1 million iPhone activations in the most recent quarter — the second-highest quarterly total ever — more than one-third of which were new subscribers. And although rumors of a Verizon Wireless iPhone have long floated about, there are no real signs that Apple will loosen AT&T’s exclusive hold on the gadget soon. Among the large U.S. carriers we’ll call AT&T the fanboy.

    The Middle Manager: Verizon Wireless, meanwhile, has thrived by maintaining as much control as possible over its rock-solid network. Despite promising two years ago to support “any app, any device,” the carrier’s certification process has been notoriously slow, and Verizon has said that its upcoming app store will be the sole marketplace on handsets it sells — meaning customers looking to shop at Research In Motion’s App World or Microsoft’s Windows Phone Marketplace will have to download the storefronts. The company’s recent embrace of Skype is a positive step in the right direction, but as Om noted the partnership is a grudging one that underscores Verizon’s strategy of opening up just enough to stay competitive. With its stable network, and its politically savvy efforts to open up right before being closed becomes an issue, we’re going to dub Verizon the middle manager.

    The Price Cutter: Sprint’s primary strategy to turn around its flailing business has been a simple one: undercut the big guys and shore up what was a woeful customer-care operation. The carrier threw the first grenade with the all-you-can-eat price war two years ago with its “Simply Everything” offering and recently launched a campaign citing the differences between its unlimited plans and those of the competition. Sprint also continues to pursue the prepaid market aggressively through its Boost Mobile and Virgin USA businesses, and it hopes to tap the WiMAX market later this year before LTE networks come online. So far, those moves appear to be working — slowly.

    The Underdog: T-Mobile USA hopes later this year to leverage what could be the nation’s fastest mobile broadband network in the country. The company is rolling out HSPA+ upgrades across its network this year, giving it theoretical speeds of 21 Mbps down. That kind of performance could give T-Mo an effective way to hook customers before Verizon and AT&T flip the switches on their LTE networks, and that would help T-Mo keep some of those postpaid subscribers it’s been losing to its bigger counterparts. It also has been pretty savvy about trying new business models and services such as UMA phones and letting the Nexus One launch with its network. Like anyone who is behind, but keeps pulling out some crazy moves that show some heart, we’re going to call T-Mobile the underdog.

    Related Research from GigOM Pro:

    Image courtesy Flickr user lincolnblues.

  • Quebec’s wireless shakeup

    New legislation in Quebec that is scheduled to come into effect by June 30, 2010 could have a material impact on Canadian wireless service providers.

    Bill 60, which was first introduced in June 2009 in order to amend the previous Consumer Protection Act, will make it easier for consumers to cancel their long-term contracts since the asssociated penalties will be much lower. Currently, if a consumer decides to terminate a long-term contract signed with a wireless service provider, the company has the right to receive a termination fee.

    Quebec accounted for about 19% of Canada’s wireless subscribers at the end of 2009, according to Maher Yaghi of Desjardins Securities. The analyst estimated that BCE Inc. has the most exposure to province’s market, followed by Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp, which have similar market share.

    He said Bill 60 has the potential to both increase the province’s churn rate and provide Québecor Inc. with an easier way to capture disgruntled customers. It could also help the company target customers seeking cheaper services if Vidéotron decides to use price to attract subscribers.

    So while an increase in the wireless churn rate does have a small financial impact on carriers, if Bill 60 is a success in Quebec, the adoption of similar rules in the rest of Canada could have an even more negative impact on the value of wireless customers to service providers.

    In its current form, the bill will not be retroactive to contracts signed before the legislation takes effect.

    BCE, Rogers and Telus have similar termination policies, which stipulate that the fee is the greater of $100 or $20 per month remaining in the contract up to a maximum of $400. However, some do not have the $400 maximum.

    Under the amendments to Bill 60, termination fees will be based only on the subsidy that carriers provide to clients. The subsidy amount is the difference between the cost of the device paid for by the service provider and the price the consumer pays for the device when entering into a long-term contract, Mr. Yaghi noted. He said the impact will be particularly evident in the low and mid-range of the market, but in some circumstances the high end of the market as well.

    Given the entry of new wireless players such as Vidéotron and Public Mobile, coupled with Bill 60 taking effect, the economic value of a wireless subscriber in Québec appears as though it will be reduced.

    Jonathan Ratner