Skip to main content

MVNO --> FVNO

There is a lot of talk around MVNO's at present.

Plus: with the announcement in the UK of 11 (eleven) new GSM licencees in the low power model Dean Bubley of Disruptive Wireless has good dialogue on what this means for the market space around MVNO's. He follows up yesterday with his take on the right time for SME MVNO's, this has long been the case in the wireline market with companies like Energis but the space has already started to develop with players like Genesis.

Minus: Sprint Nextel have been very vocal this week in stating their desire to try and slow down the emergence of MVNO's by minmizing their part in the MVNE space. Sprint are one of the key providers of Minutes of Usage (MOU's) that allow some of the new MVNO's in the US to be able to offer the voice and data services that are bundled into their brand centric offering. They wish to observe how the current ones (ESPN, Disney, Helio etc) perform before adding anymore.

This in many ways makes sense as there is a theoretical maximum number of MOU's that they can provide and I guess they wish to ensure that the right volume gets to the successful MVNO's as a preference. It also would imply that they are worried about diluting their own brand as they get pushed further and further into the background. Time will tell and I will continue to watch with interest to see how this plays out.

The part of the message I would like to take away on the announcement of new licence holders in the UK is the use of low power cells and the recognition on usage patterns.

I have talked about the difference between truly mobile use and transitory use. Most people are the second category, they carry their phone from home to the office and back again as they appreciate the convenience of having the device close to hand. They occasionally make calls whilst moving (cars, trains, walking) but mostly we are static users of mobiles.

I can see a time when I actually become a partner of the Mobile Operator rather that just a simple subscriber. Take the evolution and direction of FON and how they are building a network of WiFi cells by getting people to plug in to the network and share their access point.

I know better than the operator where I want to use my mobile handset. With that in mind I could open my WiFi (or more likely WiMax or Picocell derivative) up to the network as one of my "home cells". When making calls from within the cell, integrated with UMA, I would get preferential rates (hopefully free). If other subscribers call within my cell I get credit back in minutes of usage or cash on account.

I benefit as I have signal where and when I need it most. The network operator benefits as they get free network expansion. The model is similar to individuals that run their own wind turbine. What they don't use they sell back to the electricity board.

It's part Mobile Virtual Network Operator and part FON. Let's call it FONlike Virtual Network Operator (FVNO)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Crisis Connections

What the flood situation in Thailand has shown once again is the power of social networks to fill the void of communication. In recent times the role of Facebook, Twitter, and Blackberry messenger has been shown in good and bad light.  The same methods that released the Arab Spring have also been used to coordinate the London Riots . Love them or loathe social networks are here to stay and what the floods show is how they keep people connected.  Some will say there should be no communication void if central government is on top of its game, but with a situation that can change so rapidly, and over such a large area the traditional press certainly struggle to keep the public up to date. Twitter and Facebook have been saviours for those of us outside Thailand at this time.  With roving reporters and connected people like Patee Sarasin and Jetrin out doing and tweeting many more people are kept up to date. Equally useful is the ability to time shift news updates...

AaI and Net Neutrality

On a previous post on Access as Infrastructure there was a discussion on the government led initiatives for ultra fast broadband. The proposition is that the build out of new access networks is such an expensive activity that the governments of Australia and New Zealand will make the investment, using a combination of public and private money. So with ubiquitous access a near reality and with that access provided in the same way as electricity, water, gas, and roads getting to your house what does this mean for the net neutrality debate? If the telco no longer owns the asset and are merely a party in the trade then surely this solves the net neutrality problem? The incumbent may get preferential treatment because of scale and buying power but this wouldn't be extended to priority routing. Moving the competition from the physical platform to the offering, as long as the telcos, CSPs, and RSPs are not government owned, then we can have comfort that the pipe is there and ev...

Muni, Muni, Muni

2006 is going to see an explosion in the activity of Municipal, Muni, Networks. This article from the BBC states that IP access is becoming a basic amenity, in the same way as water and electricity. Philly is the next to be online; with a 135 square mile network being built out by Earthlink and turned on next year. Not far behind is San Francisco with, you've guessed it, Google as one of the prime bidders. They believe they can take their successful advertising revenue stream to provide free IP access to the proletariat. On a brief aside the partnership of Google and NASA, can we expect to see Google in Space? With the benefits of WiFi access to schools, hospitals and police forces around the US it won't take long for a few well publicized examples of how access helped them for the ball to start rolling. I would agree with Paul that the secret to success is a partnership with the existing carriers. Otherwise the likes of SprintNextel could easily freeze the new comers out. Th...