VoIP

FCC broadband analysis uncovers seven critical gaps

The FCC has jumped decisively into the broadband deployment issue with a number of new initiatives. In the “concrete” area, it issued a declaratory ruling to expedite the decisions on cell tower installation, removing what some operators characterized as selected local logjams.

Perhaps the most far-reaching thing in the laundry list of broadband commentary yesterday was a task force report from the national broadband plan activity that listed no fewer than seven critical gaps that impact broadband availability. In summary, they were USF limitations, demographic inequality, consumer education problems, spectrum limitations, infrastructure cost barriers, STB innovation stagnation and privacy issues. While there has been publicity to suggest that open access is now a strong contender, those views are linked only to past studies and not to any current comment by the FCC. We indicated our view on the Berkman study in a past blog; we disagree almost totally with its findings.

Bidding for Nortel’s Ethernet assets highlights NSN’s needs

Yesterday was the final date for the submission of bids for Nortel’s metro Ethernet assets. Financial analysts are generally saying that the deal would be favorable for Ciena at its straw-man bid price, but of course the favorable outcome demands it getting the bid.

Nortel, whose latest quarter showed more bloodletting, is in the process of self-dismemberment down to a minimalist piece nobody can quite identify yet. NSN is also widely expected to bid for the unit to rekindle its chances in North America, where rival Ericsson’s win of the Nortel wireless unit has given it a leg up. The Ericsson CEO did a bit of crowing over its position in North America, in fact.

With Alcatel-Lucent winning many of the AT&T procurement zones and Ericsson strong in wireless, NSN needs to get effective in a hurry. We don’t think that the Nortel deal will do enough; NSN should look to broader M&A and strategy changes quickly.

Sprint & WiMAX partners to invest more in technology development

Sprint and others in the WiMAX partnership have agreed to contribute more money to the 4G wireless technology despite the view by some that WiMAX is the poor stepchild of 4G and that LTE is the anointed. The problem is that they have fallen into a nomenclature trap. 4G technologies are alike in that they’re the generation after 3G, but WiMAX and LTE are in different families, and in truth are not likely to be very competitive.

WiMAX is aimed at migratory users who operate from a small number of fixed locations in some random sequence—hence our name for the group and the behavior. LTE is a successor to 3G mobile service, largely aimed at a mobile or at least a regularly moving population. The preferred LTE instrument is the smartphone; for WiMAX, it’s the tablet or the netbook.

We think Sprint and its allies are on to something here. Wireless behavior is constrained by its device support, and little devices are not great vehicles with which to view content or even web pages. Yes, there will be many iPhone and Android lovers who will use their mobile devices from fixed locations, but we think a large number of users will adopt a larger device designed for sedentary applications in cafes and other locations.

There’s still plenty of time (and ways) to mess this up, but we think Sprint could redeem its position with WiMAX. In fact, it’s the only way it can do that. Sprint is cutting its workforce, which hardly speaks favorably about its prospects with normal cellular services.

New broadband stimulus proposal emerges from FCC inquiry

A proposal to pay ISPs to connect broadband customers is one of those that’s emerging out of the FCC broadband policy debate, and the concept has some merit. A direct payment for a connected subscriber might address the fact that there is a very large base of consumers who can get broadband but don’t, and not being willing/able to pay for it appears to be the largest reason.

A subsidy would be a strong incentive to boost broadband usage, but there are major risks. The incentive might spawn another overlay CLEC model that doesn’t really address cost management and thus doesn’t create a viable market. Users might be pirated to gain their subsidies and given substandard services. Some significant tuning on the idea is essential if it’s to form an element of a future broadband policy. We think, for example, that the funds should go only to ISPs who provide facility-based services.

Nortel’s Ethernet auction: What of the NSN speculation?

It’s almost time to play “Who’s Got the Nortel Ethernet” assets, with the auction coming in little more than a week. The big question is whether NSN, Cisco or another player might jump on Ciena’s stalking-horse opening bid.

Most financial industry speculation is aimed at NSN, whose numbers seemed to show more product sales erosion than others in the market. At NSN’s analyst event, there was a sense that professional services were the name of the game, though of course they could never sustain a business of that size. Furthermore, nobody knows how much of the professional services business NSN could get without a strong equipment base. In short, NSN needs to sell gear.

The Nortel stuff would bring them a much better North American presence, one of the problems NSN is contending with. It may collide with the Juniper/NSN joint venture, however, enough to reduce its overall value. We don’t think NSN could up the Ciena bid more than about $250 million without paying so much the Street would trash its stock. We also wonder whether more low-OSI-layer assets will really help.

Our feeling: leave Nortel alone.

Juniper/NSN joint venture and the LTE connection

Cries that Juniper must now match Cisco and Tellabs and buy a mobile-core player are ignoring a critical reality — and it’s not that Juniper’s new superchip can make its universal edge portfolio into an Enhanced Packet Core box (though it can).

The real issue with wireless, guys, is that you need a radio network. Through its close relationship with NSN (including metro, which after all is the “core” of Enhanced Packet Core, through its joint venture), Juniper has direct linkage with the radio network. NSN and Juniper actually make a pretty credible total mobile solution provider, stronger than either Tellabs or Cisco, providing that they can make the joint venture work effectively in that light.

NSN also adds professional services, which virtually all LTE deals are likely to mandate. All of this, to us, means that the real question is whether the Juniper/NSN joint venture will work effectively. While both companies blow kisses at the joint venture in their public comments, we’re still waiting to see substantive cooperation emerge.

NSN professional services a plus for carrier procurement zone strategy

The head of NSN’s North America operation said the company would be an LTE leader in North America, and said it rather emphatically, to be sure. The comments came at NSN’s analyst event this week, which was a parade of optimism on NSN’s prospects in the market, not only in North America but elsewhere.

NSN’s greatest strength is its professional services business, and second on the list comes its credibility with operators in multi-vendor integration. The company also has a strong service-layer story, though that story is built on tools used by its consulting and professional services staff to create one-off solutions for operators and not productized (at least for now).

The value of professionals services in the U.S. today is based on the procurement zone trend, already formally in place at AT&T, and in process (we’re told) at both Verizon and Qwest, and being considered even by Sprint. This program creates what’s effectively a mandatory systems integration position in each zone, which in turn means that those with strong capabilities in that area can expect to get a prime vendor position.

Verizon quarterly financials tell classic telco story

Verizon delivered a classic US-telco story in the third quareter: Wireless was doing very well, telco TV was doing better, enterprise services were under price pressure, and wireline losses continued.

For Verizon, the net was better than Street expectations. Most encouraging were revenue gains of more than 10%, though about half of that was from the Alltel acquisition. Customer churn was up slightly in wireless, and DSL broadband subscribers continued to decline, but the latter was more than offset by broadband FiOS growth, suggesting that Verizon FiOS is attracting broadband users beyond its own DSL base.

The company promised investors that LTE would not generate a big capex surge, a relief given that the large up-front FiOS load is finally tapering down. In all, the story was good but not great. You can see that Verizon, like AT&T, is spending a ton of money on wireless and making a big bet it will be able to capitalize on that investment. We think that in the near term, that is almost certain. But the long-term viability of wireless depends on the ability of the operators to create value beyond voice and Internet.

Verizon’s smartphone direction still chasing AT&T?

Verizon is apparently planning a total smartphone blitzfor the holidays, including the already-discussed Droid from Motorola, but also according to rumor, a new HTC Android smartphone and perhaps a third model as well.

The Verizon moves are, we think, are calculated to make things complicated for AT&T and Apple with the iPhone for the holidays. A multiplicity of models at various sizes and price points makes sense at this stage in the market, but there is no question Apple still has the cachet that other smartphones have so far been unable to match.

We think all of these smartphone wars are a signal that whatever the FCC might do with wireless net neutrality, operators are committed to the mobile web.

FCC includes pivotal issue in Net Neutrality NPRM

The FCC isn’t “considering” net neutrality rules as a formal order; they’re “proposing” specific actions. That’s the meaning of what happened yesterday at the public meeting. The FCC approved its net neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by unanimous vote, but Republicans dissented in part, just enough to keep alive the partisan bickering that’s characterized Washington and to reflect their concern with some of the points.

If you look at the document closely, you find it really consists of four parts. One codifies the original principles of net neutrality that were published in 2005. The second requires that providers treat lawful traffic in a non-discriminatory way and publish any traffic management policies. Both these sections (which are subdivided further in the NPRM) are largely accepted by all. The third element asserts the FCC’s position that these principles be applied across access types, meaning wireline telco, cable, and wireless. This raises some ire in the industry, and also with some Republicans.

The final point, in our view this is the most controversial, asks for comment on the specialized services that are IP-delivered and share the broadband pipe with the Internet. The FCC wants to know how to define these and what rules (including the six defined in the first and second parts we’ve outlined) should apply to these special services.

This last issue is pivotal because should the FCC decide these services are also to be regulated in some way, they could impose access-sharing requirements on telco IPTV offerings. We think it will be months before any order comes out of this process, but just the fact that the FCC is thinking about the third and fourth issues here could force operators to consider what would happen to their mobile and wireline walled-garden services if access connections had to be wholesaled to competitors at a fair price.

Regulatory issues are never covered well in the media, and the public interest in this one will likely make it worse. Make no mistake; the key to the future is in the single issue of those managed or special services!