ManyMedia

This is the fourth and final day of my coverage of this conference. The information for this morning (today) is here.

The first session this morning is on Policy. Walda Roseman is moderator for speakers Rob Frieden, Heather Hudson, Francis Pereira, and Laura Sherman.

Walda Roseman: Broadband Mobility: Matching Promise with Performance in Asia

Wireless and mobile platforms in delivery of broadband.

Promise in this region: all Asian citizens will have access by 2015, mobile and wireless platforms and advanced user devices will provide access to a full range of services in next few years, and medium and low income countries (wireless is access to info and services) will be able to share in benefits. No commonly accepted definition of what broadband is; working definition is whether or not wireless access on fully loaded system can support services comparable to ADSL.

Asia-Pacific Broadband Opportunity and challenge: Asia has “a yawning broadband divide” with half of economies having highest penetration, many least served areas are also Asian. ITU chart: highest income economies have access, 31 lower income countries with low or no access.

Observations: most systems cannot maintain broadband speeds when network is fully loaded. Usage of mobile systems varies. Much of data needs are being served on mobile platforms.

Is Asia ready? short answer: no, maybe not for a long time. Nationwide, service is out of reach, quality of service is low.

Government policy as driver of mobile broadband: first step is strong political and regulator will, legal framework, and responsiveness by government to market needs and expectations. Foremost is partnership between government and industry. Need to promote quality of service, availability of spectrum, equipment, and global interoperability.

Problems: Asia falls way short of meeting needs, gov support is required.

Heather Hudson: Overcoming the Challenges of Isolation (Small Islands)

Quote from last August indicating complete drop of access. Region is highly diverse, has severe challenges because of isolation and small populations. (Also includes landlocked countries who depend on transport thru another country.) Most areas have low and lower middle income countries.

Importance: disaster communications, imports, experts, tourism, distance learning, development of back offices for information work. Example: Bits for Borneo: broadband in the jungle, diversifying gross national happiness, University of SOuth Pacific for distance education.

Regulatory policies: most have competition in mobile, few in fixed line. Trends to better devices. Mobile growing: more than 60% of phone subscribers in some areas, competition in some areas, prices higher than average.

Bad news: Internet access is limited in speed, less than 3 subscribers per 100 people, some countries <1 in 200. Availability of broadband: price high (150% of gross national income, in wealthier countries: 2%. of GNI). Monthly use prices also very high (in relative GNI and absolute $ terms).

International connectivity: generally getting cheaper, most islands served by satellite, high transit rates and tarriff proxies (e.g., Skype-out: over $1 per min, compared to $.02 to Singapore and Hong Kong).

Strategies to bridge the connectivity gaps: increase competition, recognize demand, limit periods of exclusivity, extend access through resale, and reduce local barriers. Think about community access as first priority. Universal service funds must be open to all providers. Perhaps a universal (targetted?) broadband fund for Pacific Islands?

Rob Frieden: The Spin in Broadband Statistics: How the FCC makes False Assessments of Next Gen Network Deployment in the US

Check the book.

Absent market failure, should govs stimulate broadband investment, subsidize service, or become a carrier? FCC (for a number of reasons) hasn’t really been telling the truth in terms of broadband penetration. In policy process, may be incentive to skew. “Incentivize” is common term. National goal for broadband, “mission accomplished.” $7B subsidiary to incumbents, delivery poor or non-existent to certain areas. FCC statistics say we’re doing great, based on 200k bits/sec definition. Penetration goes to 77% of all zip codes, with 4 or more broadband choices. FCC tells us (by zip) by numerical figure in internal charts (considered “trade secrets” which are confidential). However, wireless carriers don’t claim the trade secret exemption and willingly disclose coverage maps.

US ranks 15th among OECD nations in household penetration. Lags most nations on basis of per capita.

Whose statistics are most credible? State department was outraged at cooked books. Most options don’t exceed 200 kbps, but FCC shows increase in coverage.

Case study: Port Matilda PA. Current strategies and statistics not working. Erates have achieved modest goals, wi-fi mixed, incumbent has right of first refusal (not optimal).

Need to use better statistics, adopt best practices (other nations).

Francis Pereira: The Effectiveness of Government Policies in Broadband Deployment: An Assessment of Select Asian Countries

Broadband penetration and adoption rates vary across countries (globally). Various plans for ubiquitous, ultra high speed, or advanced ICT apps and services deployments (diff countries use diff strategies).

Sinapore’s gov initiatives: TradeNet, One Broadband Network incentives to conduct e-commerce, GeBiz (gov site), and iN2015. Singapore and Hong Kong (TradeLink) chart, different priorities and reasons for services. Singapore’s TradeNet iniative processed 99% of all trade declarations w 2400 companies, reduced processing time, etc.

Korea’s eVision: knowledge government priority. General challenges: no definition of impacts, statistical approaches, to attribution, nature of ICT.

Some evidence for hourly compensation for production costs in manufacturing, inward FDI stock as % of GDP (chart), and employment, total assets and other measurements. Singapore: 95% of biz obtained info did so electronically at least once in last year. 94% transacted at least once, and 80% were satisfied w transaction. Korea: evidence of standard of living, effectiveness of policies, new methods of assessing contribution of ICT to society, and new business models for broadband deployment (funding last mile).

Laura Sherman: Advancing Broadband in Singapore: From Monopoly to Competition

Represents Iridium Satellite LLC (disclosure). Will use Singapore as model. Statistics: 1997 monopoly wireless, now different. Sector reform process: restructuring and limited competition: First phase (‘92-’94): separated regulator and operations. Second phase (95-98): duopoly in mobile, ended Singtel’s monopoly, added a third mobile license.

Facilities-based and WTO commitments, less limitations. Dramatic changes between 1999 and 2003, changed regulation process, now unlimited competition allowed (over 50 present in fixed and mobile). Connectivity is the impetus in driving growth.

Current Code of Practice for competition: looks at true competition, will deregulate as market changes. Facilitated thru tech-neutral licensing, nominal fees, no foreign ownership limits.

New regulatory phase, five year plan. Lessons learned: connectivity is key, limited political interference, transparent reg process, competition at all levels of value chain, tech-neutral licensing and fees.

Question: definition of broadband based on speed delivered (esp in light of deep packet and other internal routing processes)? Rob: Yes, extent for carriers to throttle and other network neutralities is second level of process, first is transparency of process and fact finding, statistics compilation. Gov should require parity between promised and delivered bit rates. Heather: pricing models haven’t moved, is another important metric. Also Canada as example: some countries have done better at serving remote areas (Canada is good!) Walda: also some countries are better at measuring throughput, dropped calls, sound quality, data… especially compared to what’s advertised.

Q (speaker from Nepal): concentration on all countries not equal.

Q (from island representative): comment about undue bias in competition: does not work in rural areas. In New Zealand and Australia, 5-10% unserved, but Islands 80% unserved. Way to go forward: define universal service development and how we pay for it. Another person disagrees: way to facilitate is thru new operators.

Quote from FCC outgoing chair warns of excessive intervention (see article from FT.com). Heather: voice service is important, competition is coming to mobile if (?) is willing to pay. Community level access in some levels might be appropriate. Laura: Malaysia throws a lot of money at connectivity but has huge licensing fees. Rob: agrees to a point with outgoing FCC Chair, but his FCC overstated and prevented competition, boxed in facilities to incumbent services.

Q: how to pay for terminal, tech support, etc? Rob: eRate top heavy (wiring), (no?) support for digital literacy. Heather: competitive subsidy system for schools in US. Need to operationalize it to serve operational, health and other services. Francis: re: who’s going to pay – what are advantages? Islands have special zones for access to certain people, is growth area. Strategic areas served first: build to rural areas vs building new hospital. Society pays because of net return on investment. Walda: India’s software zones.

Q: re lack of transparency and gaming aspects that to be considered in Austral-Asia, Is there a role for US or other that can model universal service? Walda: yes, it is being looked at for policy and operational levels, share best practices, Africa is where it is most effectively being done. Heather: liberalization is not same as deregulation. Need to set rules of the game. Enforcement in many countries is difficult for various reasons. Additionally: quality of service is critical, not enough attention to monitoring. What about a sub-regional approach? Look at EcTel (?). Laura isn’t sure it’s working. Objective isn’t being met. Walda: Quality of service: she wouldn’t blame anybody right now, first push is expansion, only after that has succeeded should one question quality.

Events, Network, Policy Asia, broadband, FCC, Pacific Islands, PTC09, satellite

This afternoon’s session is described here.

The initial question was about recommendations from the speaker’s perspective to the incoming US Presidential administration. Co-moderators Susan Irwin and Patricia Cooper (MOD), interviewing panelists: John Celli (JC), Peter Jackson (PJ), Jean-Yves Le Gall (JYLG), Yutaka Nagai (YN), and Dean Olmstead (DO).

MOD: Economy is a key driver. Tell me what you think effects of economic downturn have had on industry, how are we doing, what indicators are you following?

DO: big infrastructure projects are of a such a long term nature that current situation is a point. We’re looking to our users and competitors, expansion. As an operator, we have to be prepared to understand the level of risk we’re willing to engage in. Based on users and customers to plan short term.

JYLG: where market needs credit, is more difficult.

YN: established operators have longtime base, no immediate impact. need to look long term. Two concerns: project like geo mobile systems: can they raise enough money to continue? Also some operators will have problems because of increasing satellite costs.

JC: seeing satellite industry has indicators of good health. Mobile systems and other systems, including broadband–lack of capital will put a break on activities and pehaps increase mergers and acquisitions to expand growth. Backlog is healthy. What concerns me: drops of 40% in (?). Risks coming through in last few years. Quite different opinion than 2001, bomb was fast; now much deeper and more global.

PJ: Although certain failures, TV grows, which is a key factor for them. People don’t spend money unless they think their job is safe, so they do see TV companies may not be growing but they’ll continue to grow (esp ads). Asia was example (cultural choice). If values don’t support small and medium-sized enterprises, there might be trouble.

MOD: what are you doing to offset some of the economic problems:

DO: frugal management, how you choose to live. We take advantage of opportunities that are out there, being in a crisis means more of same. When things appear to be slowing, things may change.

JYLG: will introduce something this year. hmm.

YN: Efficiencies of the operation, synergies between companies. No special measures taken.

JC: have a backlog that takes short term pressure, No secret that you must create discretionary expenses, careful spending this year, focus on customers.

PJ: reassure staff that we won’t cut staff, be frugal (a state of mind). Staff treats expenses carefully.

MOD: Money in your pocket, would you spend it? Consolidation in the winds?

JC: question is what’s going to happen to competition.

DO: for most of us, we have luxury to sit back and wait.

YN: possible programs and new satellites being developed, look to parnering.

MOD: #1 priority in Asia Pacific region is pricing. What impact is global economic downturn having?

PJ: may have to visit terms for your customers, but is a real cost and difficult to cut them (failures, launching, etc.). Efficiencies work better than cutting real costs.

YN: price is low enough, no attention to lower price. Japan domestic: no reason to produce.

MOD: Parts of the world having capacity crunch.

DO: old satellites but new company, uses price regardless of economic situation.

MOD: manufacture and launch vehicle costs?

JYLG: even if we are working very hard to provide customers w best quality and abilities, this is still a cost.

JC: prices are going up slightly, Euro going up, vendor prices going up. Our focus is on cost reduction. We’re successful at providing value. Slowdown: military vendors not active in commercial sector but they may come back. We’ve built in so much efficiency that it will be hard to change.

Projects being impacted?

DO: we’re getting relatively good value, if launch cost were on parity wed be pursuing more.

YN: Not a problem (lots in orbit).

MOD: demand-side? where is push coming from?

PJ: everywhere. Interesting thing about TV: once satellite is up the opportunity to serve more is good to provide multi-channel services. Not just electronics at each end, but equipment in between can be quite expensive.

DO: it’s all about video, in different formats (HD, now push for 3D). Inexhaustible demand. Also government increasing needs.

YN: HDTV last October, this fall 70 channels, over 100 channels in 2012.

JC: commercial satellite for non-secure transactions, still have the need for special satellites for secure and other needs (e.g., troops). Scientific apps: testing for certain areas being watched.

JYLG: demand for edcuation, etc.

Questions: demand side: consumers have less to spend, pay TV subscribers (more than one member per household). How to drive this in Asia? Supply side: assume situation continues: how to encourage launches? many projects would be possible.

YN: Not a good idea to get customers who don’t pay, seeking to get good customers.

PJ: advantages of cable over ADSL is bandwidth. In terms of what suppliers can do, make boxes cheaper, esp for reduction in price of second and third boxes. HOng Kong is different, viewership went up during recession.

DO: yes, same in US.

Question: With transponder revenues dragging down, what can transponder, vendors and others do?

JC: fundamentally: strive to reduce costs, provide customers with best value. Work together to better understand what customer wants.

YN: joined satellite operators, can save launch costs.

Question (couldn’t summarize)

DO: dish video business is cash machine.

Q: launch companies; how is your biz changing? Climate change, military activities, are you launching commercial or other service?

JYLG: we’ve launched several satellites lately, observing that size is decreasing

Q: focus on cost and how to make space more accessible, what started change in manufacture model, test philosophies, etc. (?)

JC: standardizing large fleets, but otherwise…

Q: SpaceX? Claim to be able to reduce cost of launch…

JYLG: wait for more successful launches.

DO: good step in the right direction.

SpaceX rep: took fewer launches to get to success, we are in the business to compete.

JYLG: compare tonnage costs.

another SpaceX rep: what portion is launched, what’s a good value of launch service?

DO: about 1/2 of what they are today would be a good price. $60M seems to be the right number. Not analytics.

Where’s doubling of costs?

DO: supply

How to get Hollywood to help reduce costs? (laughter)

Final q: what one word to describe future?

PJ: mobile.
DO: excite
JC: imagination
JYLG: change
YN: TV

Events, Network, Policy future, PTC09, satellite, video

A significant telecom conference is coming up that will be of interest to serious insiders. It’s about creating change, collaborating and exploring new business opportunities, and growing in ways not yet defined. I’m blogging this conference, so check back for an extended post.

Coming up in a few weeks (January 18-21) in my neighborhood is the Pacific Telecom Council’s 2009 Conference: Collaborating for Change. I’ve heard that this is THE telecom conference to attend if you’re interested in collaborating with others in related fields.

From their website:

Change brings challenges and these challenges are the focus of PTC’09. Services have become far too complex to be developed and offered by a single integrated service provider. Today’s telecommunication services and applications would not be possible without unprecedented collaboration between carriers, software developers, researchers and equipment makers, both in their home countries and across borders.

While challenges remain, change brings many new opportunities as well. PTC’09 will explore these and the strategies and partnerships that bring them to market.

No event embraces the spirit of collaboration more completely than PTC.  For 31 consecutive years, telecommunications companies, equipment and software developers, content and media services providers, vendors, investors, academics and researchers, policy makers and civil society representatives have met each January in Hawaii to forge alliances, negotiate agreements, and to learn from one another’s experiences.

I hope to see some of you there. Read more…

Events, Network, Policy, Scenarios collaboration, conference, economy, fiber, Hawaii, Internet, PTC09, satellite, telecom, telecommunications

Ninth circuit court holds that the FBI can turn car help systems into roaming wiretaps. The details, however, remain a secret.

The technology involved, used by OnStar, ATX and others, combines a global positioning satellite transmitter with a cellular telephone. Drivers can use the services to seek information and emergency help.

Most of the court file in the Nevada case is sealed, and the appellate decision did not discuss the nature of the investigation or specify the brand of the system in question. But the court’s description of the system’s features is consistent with one offered by ATX, which provides telematics services for cars from BMW, Ford, Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz, among others.

The device discussed in the decision allows drivers to punch one of three buttons: for emergencies, general information and roadside assistance. The phone has a speaker and microphone, and it turns out that the microphone may be activated surreptitiously, allowing government agents to listen in on conversations in the car.

Devices, Policy automobile, car, cell phone, FBI, GPS, microphone, Ninth circuit court, satellite, spying, telematics, wiretap

NY Times’ article, “F.C.C. Expected to Extend Satellite Operators’ Reach,” reports:

After months of rumors that a decision would be handed down “any day now,” the Federal Communications Commission is expected to announce this week that satellite voice and data companies can supplement their services with land-based wireless networks. …

Lobbyists on both sides say the F.C.C. has concluded that the satellite operators cannot succeed financially unless they are allowed to use some of their allotted spectrum for land-based networks to extend their voice and data services into urban areas and indoor locations where satellite signals are obstructed. …

Communications analysts and companies involved in the debate also expect the commission to announce that it will reclaim and auction off a portion of the radio spectrum that was reserved for satellite communications but has not been used. Conventional cellular and other wireless companies would be eligible to bid for that spectrum to expand their own land-based networks.

Industry executives predict that the F.C.C. may also discuss its plans to revoke the licenses of satellite companies that have failed to meet certain requirements in the deployment of their networks.

In light of the Supreme Court’s recent NextWave decision, I’m curious to see how this coming and going of spectrum plays out in the court. Patience may reveal “the best-laid plans” result in a somewhat dysfunctional patchwork of efforts.

Policy FCC, NextWave, satellite, spectrum