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

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...

Voice puts the pinch on Content

Content providers in Thailand are struggling to stay afloat after a restructuring of the revenue sharing between the mobile operators and themselves. Firms like Advanced Info Service (AIS) have been offering content on their 2.5G networks here for sometime. This has spawned a number of content partners to spring up. The previous arrangement were of the order of 65% to 80%. The new arrangement sets a 50:50 split of the revenue between proivder and operator. The operators say that this is due to the operating costs of their networks and that up to now this has been a trial offering. It smells more like a knee jerk reaction to falling revenues from voice. When will the market wake up and realize that paying for voice is dead. The secret to the success of operators going forward will be in the successful channeling of content, where voice is but another type of content. This is a worrying trend. If the pinch continues then I see that most of the content partners will not survive long. This...

SKY New Zealand vaults into the 21st Century

New Zealand is a pretty country but it's also pretty slow in coming forward in many areas. It has it fair share of innovation but some parts of everyday life are still if not 20 years behind but at least 10...until now. Sky in the UK has made use of user driven options through handset interaction for some time, push the red button, Sky NZ still does not support this type of service. But this is where competition shows its value, it forces natural monopolies to innovate, and let's be honest Sky TV is a natural monopoly here by being the only digital TV service (which you have to use if you want to get a decent reception so Freeview doesn't count [yet]). Now Telecom has tied up with TiVo as the sole distributor in New Zealand Sky has had to play catch up, their response iSky. First impressions, given that the full service isn't launched yet, are good. Finally after years of me seeing other countries extending TV into the computer world with the likes of Yahoo -> TiVo ...