Site Search

Entries in Industry Trends (27)

Thursday
Jan302014

Clear Creek Offers Home Automation Platform for Rural Providers 

Through Alarm.com Clear Creek Offers Regional Partner Program

On January 30, 2014 Independent communications cooperative Clear Creek Communications of Oregon City, Oregon announced  the availability of their ClearView Security and Home Automation platform for the rural broadband service provider community. With the ClearView Regional Partner program, service providers gain access to a turnkey home automation platform that enhances their current product portfolio with home security, monitoring, and control solutions.  

Two regional partners, Stayton Telephone Cooperative of Stayton, Oregon and Scio Mutual Telephone of Scio, Oregon have recently emerged from a multi-month beta test program and have now made ClearView commercially available.

ClearView is strategically linked to Alarm.com. 

Press Release

Thursday
May102012

Verizon Toys with 1-800 Mobile Data Pricing Concept

Verizon CTO Tony Melone Says New Business Model has a “51-49 Chance”

Earlier this year, and to the chagrin of net neutrality advocates, AT&T announced it was considering different pricing plans that could alleviate the pain consumers feel when they obliterate their data plans too quickly every month. The idea was to base mobile data pricing models—to some extent—on the old-fashioned “1-800” pricing model. An application provider would essentially foot the bill for consumers to access its content via a mobile device, and then the consumer’s data plan would not be depleted. It sounds like a great way for consumers to try new apps that don’t use data and possibly avoid excessive overage charges, but as mentioned above, hard-line net neutrality advocates do not like it.

At the CTIA show in New Orleans this week, Verizon came forward with a similar announcement, according to CNET.  Verizon cto Tony Melone “said that there is a more than 50-50 chance that carriers will adopt a business model that allows destination services, such as Google or Netflix, to pay for clear access to their customers.” Melone continued, “As we move away from flat rate pricing, there is room for a 1-800-type of service where certain destinations could offset the cost of the network to get customers to those destinations.” But of course… “There are net neutrality issues that have to be addressed, too.” He later adjusted his odds of this pricing model coming to fruition to 51-49.

CNET explains that broadband providers see 1-800 pricing as “just another creative business model for keeping up with growing demand on the network,” but it really goes beyond that. Without the networks who invest billions, and the customers who collectively pay billions, the Googles of the world wouldn’t have a business at all—so why can’t they help offset the costs, and maybe give consumers a break?

Well, as CNT explains, “Consumer advocates and others who have supported the notion of net neutrality say that selling priority offers an unfair advantage to companies that are large enough to have money to pay for such preferential access for its customers.” In other words, a start-up app developer entering the market with very little funding might not be able to shoulder the “1-800” cost. The theory then is that this app might be lost in the app store behind all the apps who do pay the providers, and it will never reach a critical mass necessary to attract further funding—thus depriving the world of the next “Angry Birds.”

In reality, things might play out differently for some content providers versus others. But, don’t consumers benefit at least from getting some of their favorite apps and services could be “free?” CNET said AT&T cto John Donovan “said it’s tricky to balance the deployment of new technology to satisfy demand for new services from customers with the cost of deploying such services.” Clearly, the same principle is at play in the USF Contributions Reform FNPRM, where the FCC plans to consider broadening the contributions base to include broadband connections for the first time. In the coming months, expect to see the debate over new pricing models for broadband heat up—there will certainly be quite the power-struggle between net neutrality advocates and service providers (again).

Tuesday
May082012

At CTIA, Genachowski Shows No Regrets for AT&T;/T-Mobile Decision

Wireless Makes the World a Better Place

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski addressed the annual International CTIA Wireless convention in New Orleans on May 8, 2012, where he opened his prepared remarks with a yarn about how the new FCC commissioners were nominated by President Truman. Humor aside, Genachowski made some interesting comments about the state of the wireless industry and CTIA member companies’ various innovations and initiatives.  Some of the challenges that Genachowski applauded the wireless industry for tackling include: combating cell phone theft, curbing bill shock, deploying next generation 911 service, and enhancing cybersecurity. “On a series of important matters, working together, we’ve been able to develop real solutions to real problems. This is good for American consumers and good for the wireless industry,” said Genachowski.

Genachowski further expressed awe about milestones reached by the wireless industry, like “more people now have mobile phones than electricity or running water,” and “Smartphone sales now exceed PC sales.” Altogether, “The implications of the mobile revolution for our economy and our quality of life are profound.” As per usual, Genachowski highlighted the number of jobs allegedly created by the wireless industry (1.6m, including 500,000 in the app industry), and the benefits of wireless for education, public safety, and the economy.

The “Internet of Things” is all the rage in the wireless industry right now, especially following AT&T’s big announcement yesterday about AT&T Digital Life, a remote home monitoring and automation portfolio. Genachowski commented, “The Internet of Things has the ability to enable remote health monitoring, smart energy grids and smart, secure homes; to foster more efficient transportation networks, water systems, and logistical support for businesses.” He added, “This isn’t science fiction.” Genachowski noted that the U.S. is leading the global wireless revolution, and “Mobile broadband is changing the world for the better.” However, the wireless industry shouldn’t get too complacent at the top—Genachowski cautioned that the industry must still innovate and invest “in hardware, in software, in air interfaces, in business models, everywhere.”

Perhaps the most provocative statements by Genachowski at CTIA were directed towards AT&T in response to recent claims by AT&T that by not merging with T-Mobile, customers will suffer from higher prices and the industry will suffer from a spectrum shortage. Genachowski said “Some have recently argued that the government’s review of transactions in the wireless space—or, let’s be frank, review of one specific transaction—is somehow causing a shortage of spectrum and leading that company to raise prices for consumers.”

Not true, according to Genachowski: “the overall amount of spectrum available has not changed, except for the steps we’re taking to add new spectrum to the market.” Furthermore, “At its core, the argument—that competition is bad for consumers—is at odds with basic free-market principles.” He elaborated, “The notion that competition drives spectrum inefficiency is at odds with our history with mobile, which demonstrates that competition drives investment in efficiency-enhancing technologies and the evolution of business models to the benefit of consumers and providers alike.” All in all, Genachowski sticks to his convictions about the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, and asserts that this merger “crossed a line.”

Looking to the not-so-distant future, Genachowski hopes to see experimentation in pricing and business models, “accelerated upgrades of network architecture,” small cell and smart antenna advancement, and re-purposing of older wireless technologies to LTE. Genachowski then described the FCC’s Mobile Action Plan, which “goes well beyond incentive auctions,” but seemed rather vague overall with references to “opportunities,” “toolkits,” and “charting the next frontiers of wireless policy.”

After running through a long list of things the FCC is doing to help promote wireless investment and innovation, Genachowski eventually mentioned the Universal Service Fund reforms, where “This was the first time the U.S. recognized mobile services as an independent universal service objective.” He explained that Phase I of the Mobility Fund is fast approaching, and “a number of wireless providers across the country are making great progress extending 4G to rural communities, including through partnerships and sharing arrangements.”

Genachowski wrapped up his 14-page prepared statement by saying “the best is yet to come,” and “Working together, we can seize the opportunities of the mobile revolution and build a brighter future.” If Genachowski’s speech tells us anything, it is that this is an exciting time to be in the wireless industry.

Sunday
May062012

Verizon’s Dry DSL Departure Conundrum 

Is Verizon Sending Mixed Messages about Copper?

About a month ago, reports and evidence surfaced that Verizon planned to start requiring standalone DSL (or “dry DSL,” “naked DSL”) customers to subscribe to landline telephone service tied to their broadband connection, and it looks like Verizon’s new policy is set to kick in on May 6, 2012. New customers seeking standalone DSL need not apply at Verizon, and existing standalone DSL customers might be forced to add a landline if they want to make changes to their accounts or if they move. On May 3, 2012, a large band of consumer advocates sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, urging the FCC to consider the impacts of Verizon’s business decision to push customers off standalone DSL accounts.  Signatories include Access Humboldt, Access Point Inc., Blue Casa Telephone, Consumers Union, Future of Music Coalition, Institute for Self-Reliance, Lightyear Network Solutions, Lingo Inc., Media Working Group, Mountain Area Information Network, National Alliance for Media Arts & Culture, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, Primus Telecommunications, Public Knowledge, Vonage, Women in Media & News, and Writers Guild of America, West.

The consumer advocates note that the FCC once took on the task of examining “the competitive consequences when providers bundle their legacy service with new services, or ‘tie’ such services together such that the services are not available independent from one another to end users”…but the docket has been idle since 2005. In light of Verizon’s new policy, the consumer advocates believe it is time for the FCC to refresh the record and at least “work with Verizon to explore its planned discontinuance of standalone DSL, and, if possible, to delay the implementation of a policy that would further reduce the affordability and availability of broadband services to consumers.” They are also concerned about what Verizon’s standalone DSL ditching might mean for number portability, wholesale broadband access, and the competitive OTT voice market.

The letter explains that an estimated 385k customers, or 10% of Verizon’s DSL subscribers, might be impacted by Verizon’s new policy. What’s interesting is that Verizon is on one hand trying to force cord-cutter customers to take back a landline, while simultaneously sending other market signals indicating that Verizon wants out of the landline—and copper loop—business. The Hill’s Hillicon Valley quoted Public Knowledge spokesman Art Brodsky as saying that Verizon’s plan to force standalone DSL customers back to POTS is actually “further evidence that Verizon is bailing on the landline side of the telecommunications business.” Verizon is also reportedly trying to push DSL customers to FiOS in areas where FiOS is available…and then we also have the business of large ILECs (namely AT&T, but Verizon too) trying to strong-arm state legislators to end Carrier of Last Resort obligations.

It all amounts to quite the conundrum—Verizon wants to boost its bottom line by making people bundle broadband and landline, yet they also want to move customers away from DSL and possibly abandon landline service completely in some places. I’m personally no stranger to Verizon’s distaste for dry DSL customers. I wanted to upgrade my blazing-slow 756kbps dry DSL connection several months ago, and Verizon only allowed me to upgrade if I also opened a landline phone account—which I had previously dumped in 2006. Even with the landline, I can only get 3 Mbps DSL in downtown DC (my inability to switch to Comcast for broadband is a tale of woe for another time, perhaps).

Verizon’s recent business decisions impact consumer choice and the competitive marketplace, which the consumer advocates rightly observe. But what is the FCC’s role in the situation? Should the FCC dictate whether or not Verizon (or any broadband provider) must offer standalone broadband service? It might be interesting if the 2005 docket is refreshed, but one probably shouldn’t expect any swift action.

Monday
Apr302012

Hulu Said to Go “Walled Garden,” Require Cable Account to Watch OTT 

Is This a Step Backwards for the OTT Video Revolution?

Online video powerhouse Hulu shot to popularity by offering mainly broadcast TV shows online for free a short time after they aired, but it appears as Hulu is now borrowing a move from the HBOGO and TV Everywhere playbooks and requiring would-be viewers to authenticate themselves with a cable TV account in order to watch Hulu’s vast library of content.  The New York Post reported on April 29, 2012, “Hulu, which attracted 31 million unique users in March under a free-for-all model, is taking its first steps to change to a model where viewers will have to prove that they are a pay-TV customer to watch their favorite shows.” The most basic explanation for this decision, which is likely to upset more than a few cable cord-cutters, is that “The move toward authentication is fueled by cable companies and the networks looking to protect and profit from their content.”

Hulu has a subscription tier, Hulu Plus, which costs $8 per month for unlimited viewing and includes a wide variety of content from popular network shows to lesser-known independent movies. Some popular network shows from Fox have already moved behind this paywall. Currently, it is unclear if Hulu Plus subscribers will have to authenticate a cable account as well. FierceCable also explains that “News Corp.’s Fox-owned TV stations have also begun to tie online video distribution to retransmission-consent deals. The company has agreements with Verizon, Dish, DirecTV and Mediacom Communications that allow subscribers to access complete episodes of Fox original programs on Fox.com and through TV Everywhere portals.” Put differently, networks are making it more difficult for viewers to just go online and watch an episode of a TV program that can be watched for free over-the-air.  

Hulu’s move toward an authentication business model incited a strong reaction from Techdirt bloggers: “”In no rational world would Hulu move in this direction on its own. Hulu’s key selling point is that it’s the go-to source for cord cutters, helping it build up a very large audience. Taking that crowd out of its audience makes it close to useless. While the studios love this because they make so much money from pay TV companies, it’s incredibly short-sighted in the long run. It’s pure protectionism of legacy revenues, done by sacrificing the only truly innovative platform they’ve invested in.”

It makes perfect sense that content creators and broadcasters want to protect their revenue, but why does it have to happen at the expense of consumer demands and clear market trends? Unlike HBO, Hulu’s free content is just that—free content­, at least for the few million people who still only rely on over-the-air TV. This constant power-and-money struggle between OTT innovators and content incumbents shows no sign of waning anytime soon, unfortunately. Until the various stakeholders can figure out how to make a profit on OTT video and give consumers the content they want when and where they want it, there will probably be a succession of hits, misses, and consumer casualties.

Free Press policy director Matt Wood commented, “This development would be terrible news for consumers and competition in the online video market. While Hulu should be able to make money on its services, imitating cable’s walled-garden model would actually deprive access to millions of willing purchasers. People who want to cut the cord and get rid of cable TV would be unable to watch programs on Hulu’s website. Hulu is depriving itself of an online audience for no other reason than to hold people hostage to a cable TV subscription they don’t want.”

The confusion over the state of the OTT market has reached the upper echelons of the US government, too. Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the emergence of online video. Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) led the hearing, which attempted to answer “the most penetrating questions about the impenetrable future” of television and OTT video. Throughout the hearing, questions were plentiful but answers were often vague and unsubstantial—probably because no one, not even the experts on the panel, can accurately predict the direction of the OTT video market aside from the fact that it is growing, becoming a formidable competitive force, and upsetting traditional video business models and revenue streams.

One question in the hearing was whether OTT content is a compliment or substitute for traditional pay-TV, and if OTT offerings would result in downward pricing pressure on pay TV. Currently, OTT video is more of a complement to pay-TV, and it is a way for consumers to “test the waters” on whether or not they really want to cut the video cord. Personally, I’ve been experimenting with different OTT offerings for a few months and have yet to cut the cord. OTT services—Hulu in particular—have enticed me to watch shows that I might not have watched otherwise, but I have not typically gone out of my way to watch these shows on cable after watching them on Hulu or Netflix. One of the benefits I’ve noticed is that I can free up DVR space that, pre-Hulu, I would have used to store network shows. With Hulu, I can use the DVR space for HD movies and shows that are not available on OTT platforms. These are all nice things that enhance my home entertainment options, but the bottom line is that I still haven’t cut the cord because OTT just isn’t “there” yet—but that’s just my personal experience. The great thing about OTT is that it can, in theory at least, empower consumers to customize their video entertainment options based on their tastes, budget, Internet connection, and devices.

So, will Hulu’s decision to require users to have a cable account amount to a step backwards for the OTT video market? It probably isn’t going to help Hulu attract new viewers en masse, but it might open doors for new entrants to step in—that is, if new entrants can actually get access to popular content, which is becoming more and more difficult by the day. Going further, how does the OTT power-struggle affect rural independent telecom providers? These companies have to balance meeting the demands of their consumers with avoiding cannibalization of their own video services with the raising costs and difficulty of accessing content. This is clearly no easy task, but companies willing to take risks and think outside the cable box might see payoffs once this market matures.