Skip to main content

Long Term Evolution vs Short Term Monetisation

After a seminar late last year I commented on some of the potential shortcomings, at least in my mind, of the New Zealand Government's decision to invest tax dollars into ultra fast broadband (UFB).

In recent months Telecom New Zealand, now shed of its fixed access networks after the structural separation of Chorus, has announced its plans for a 4G trial.  This Long Term Evolution (LTE) offering is being adopted across the world and promises to have speeds of 300/75Mbps.

Putting this into context the multi-million dollar investment in UFB promises speeds of at least 100Mbps.  The geography and urban distribution of New Zealand mean that this Fibre to the Premise (FttP) rollout will never be committed to every home in New Zealand, the fixed costs would be prohibitive.  The solution is the adjunct offering of the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) that will see a hybridisation of the network to include fixed wireless nodes, and ADSL to try and deliver the dream of ubiquitous access.

Of course this means that for consistent delivery of services, of which the killer application has yet to be realised, will typically mean delivery to the lowest common denominator (either fixed wireless or ADSL).  In parallel Telecom will continue its aggressive push into its mobile network and people will become used to increasing speeds on a selection of form factors.  When we consider the impact that fixed wireless and mobile have made in emerging economies where whole countries and generations have skipped the clunky, restrictive, fixed access (copper) networks and jumped straight to mobile with great success, we should ask what will the usage patterns be of the general consumer by the time UFB and its network of regionalised retail service providers are ready to commence service?

Visit any modern city in South East Asia and you will see the average person using their mobile handset (often enhanced with one of the many tablets available today) in-lieu of a traditional land line.  People are being behaviourally locked in to fully mobile access to voice, email, and a growing array of content.  Will people really want to be tied to services provisioned through a set top box? or would they rather have close to UFB speed, and potentially faster, from their handset and tablet platform with its intuitive user interface?

Admittedly there will be some uptake of FttP services in the business sector. However the ability to fully monetise services at a level that is both palatable for the consumer and that generates revenue at a level to meet the return on invest projections will be tough.

Has the Government merely funded a very useful fibre backhaul pathway for Telecom?

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
1 comment
Read more