Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rob S. who wrote (20823)	4/16/2007 11:22:04 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Hi Rob S., The one aspect in your uplinked reply that most caught my attention is the influence played by "billing" and other carrier-centric OSS/BSS capabilities in the design decision processes for roaming and handoff functions at the very small access point (pico, femto) levels. I thought that I had stashed away a report a while back addressing these issues, but, alas, me thinks the cleaning service had their way with it. So much for the value of hard copy archives. Of particular interest to me in your account were the dichotomous considerations surrounding the design and development of military and consumer platform developments wherein the agility afforded by the former for battlefield and other demanding conditions are sacrificed in the latter's design due to the constraints imposed by the need for service providers to capture every call and feature event for billing. I presume that the latter also includes hooks for auditing and maybe even CALEA-related purposes, although you didn't cover those last two points to any degree. However, I think that they can be readily inferred. Two considerations cross my mind. The first has to do with the loss of functionality in the consumer space as a result of these constraints, and the second relates to the question of economic 'makes-sense' of application suites that are designed for provisioning, billing and controlling every aspect of the end user's experience. I won't delve into the first of these too much except to speculate about how much potential feature richness and functionality resides in the development of consumer-related applications (both those provided by the SP and those that end users themselves might elect to implement) that could mimic battlefield-like conditions in modern civilian life. I'm sure that those are also achievable under models that perform feature billing, but then we arrive at my second consideration over whether it really makes sense to bill for every feature and capability in the first place. In other words, I question the intermediate- and long- term value that carriers and consumers alike will derive from a model that assesses a penny, nickel or dime every time a user's finger touches a button on their handheld vs. one that is streamlined and dependent on a less burdensome back office approach that could be either based on flat-rate or some other billing method. I probably would NOT have brought this up five years ago, but given the prospects of frequency re-use and smart radio modulation and antenna designs you've so eruditely described here, some of which could be seen as happening now or right around the corner, I think it's time to recognize that some of the earlier tradeoffs that served the providers well in the past may no longer in the face of the above stated improvements and mounting competition. The competition to which I'm referring in this case is not only from other service providers, but also from the applications that end users are deploying themselves, which, in many cases, users find more appealing and conducive to their individual needs and wants than those provided by the SPs. As wireless capabilities approach those of wireline, which increasingly also includes hybridized forms of wireline/wireless, so, to, I believe, will the economic arguments that have historically shaped wireline "broadband" pricing strategies over the past decade. I'm referring to the notion that it costs the service provider more to perform billing than it's actually worth to them after all factors have been taken into account. Your views on this subject would be appreciated. Along similar lines, I came across the following viewpoint from editor Lynnette Luna of Fierce WiFi this morning that touches on some related issues. fiercewifi.com ---snip: How attractive is mobile broadband to the Internet user? Parks Associates released a report that concluded mobile broadband access services have failed to capture the interest of average consumers worldwide because of the premium prices charged for the services. Only Internet users in the U.K. are willing to pay a premium over the cost of fixed connections for mobile broadband access. In the U.S., consumers are willing to pay only a 6 percent premium for a basic mobile broadband service. Drop the price to $35 a month, a price that is significantly lower than what is available on the market, and only 19 percent of U.S. Internet users are interested in mobile broadband service. The firm said that at this price point, the total worldwide addressable market is less than 100 million subscribers. What does this mean for Sprint Nextel's WiMAX service? It is highly likely that the operator will be offering WiMAX services in the $30 range, but I predict there will be significant pent-up demand if a variety of devices come to market at the right price. Remember Nextel's trials of Flash-OFDM in Raleigh, NC? The operator offered high-speed wireless services for $30 a month. Despite knowing that the service was a six-month trial, consumers were annoyed when it ended. I suspect that lack of understanding about the potential of mobile broadband came into play in this survey--especially all of the marketing surrounding high-speed data services via a laptop has to do with the road warrior. Interestingly, Don Stroberg, vice president of 4G strategy, planning and development with Sprint, said in a recent interview that early market trials have shown that 80 percent-plus of users consumed the service in a truly mobile or portable fashion. Users bought the service with mobility usage in mind, but also realized they could cut the Internet cord at home. That means WiMAX could potentially usurp both WiFi hotspots and DSL. -Lynnette -snip FAC ------