Connect with us

Expert Opinion

Alexander Goldman: Broadband Expert Andrew Odlyzko Warns Telecom Investors That Industry Has Its Math Wrong, Again

Published

on

November 4, 2014 – Nearly a year-and-a-half ago, Verizon Communications CEO Lowell McAdam claimed in an editorial in The New York Times, “The United States built its lead because companies invested nearly $1.2 trillion, over 17 years, to deploy next-generation broadband networks.”

That number is meaningless: over a period of 17 years, much of the infrastructure would have to be replaced at least once. Internet progressed from dialup to digital subscriber line (DSL) to cable and fiber today. Cell phones went through at least two generations of change in this time. McAdam may be quoting meaningless numbers because meaningful numbers don’t make Verizon look too good.

You can find meaningful numbers for investment and profitability in the latest paper by Professor Andrew Odlyzkoandrew-o, a mathematics professor at the University of Minnesota who has a history of getting internet statistics right when the rest of the world gets the numbers wrong. In 1998, when telecommunications industry boosters were claiming that traffic was doubling every 100 days, Odlyzko said it was growing by 75 percent to 150 percent each year. The difference between 1000 percent each year and 100 percent each year turned out to be the difference between telecom boom and telecom bust. He gets his numbers from authoritative sources such as the OECD and CTIA.

Today, when the cellular telephone industry claims that it is burning cash, Odlyzko says it’s not true. When the cellular telephone industry says its business is driven by demand for high bandwidth video, Odlyzko says that industry growth is driven by demand for communications, and that the interesting trend is that texts are replacing voice calls.

In his new paper, Will smart pricing finally take off? (available here), Odlyzko prints the following table:

Table 2: Voice to text substitution (US)

year voice minutes billions texts billions
2005 1,495 81
2006 1,798 159
2007 2,119 363
2008 2,203 1,005
2009 2,275 1,563
2010 2,241 2,052
2011 2,296 2,304
2012 2,300 2,190

 

The cell phone companies are pleased because texts are where the profits are, as explained by table 1, price per megabyte (the table shows approximate numbers, but those approximate numbers show where the profits are):

SMS $1,000.00
cellular voice 1.00
wireline voice 0.10
residential Internet 0.01
backbone Internet 0.0001

 

The reality is that cellular networks don’t need to invest in platinum-plated networks. Their customers merely require a network that can deliver text messages. Cell phone network companies (if you can believe their SEC filings) are incredibly profitable, and are spending relatively little on infrastructure:

year revenues in $ billions capex in $ billions capex/revenues
2004 102.1 27.9 27.3%
2005 113.5 25.2 22.2
2006 125.5 24.4 19.4
2007 138.9 21.1 15.2
2008 148.1 20.2 13.6
2009 152.6 20.4 13.3
2010 159.9 24.9 15.6
2011 169.8 25.3 14.9
2012 185.0 30.1 16.3

 

Odlyzko estimates that it would cost only $240 billion to replace the equipment in every cell phone network in the U.S. He reasons:

In wireless, industry statistics show that cumulative capital investment, from the start of service three decades ago, came to $365 billion by the end of 2012. Much of that investment has of course been written off, as old equipment gets replaced. So to replace everything (and it is far easier to replace telecom installations, even cell towers, than it is to replace electric power plants), would probably not cost more than half of the cumulative total, or about $180 billion. But just to be safe, let’s assume it would take $240 billion.

He thinks it is shocking that Verizon had to pay $130 billion to buy out Vodafone’s 45% share of Verizon Wireless. It makes sense only because “modern telecom is less about high capital investments and far more a game of territorial control, strategic alliances, services, and marketing, than of building a fixed infrastructure.” Verizon must be assuming that Vodafone’s high profit margins will continue but that is only possible if the cellular telephone market in the U.S. has already succumbed to the market failure known as monopoly.

This blog post does not describe the focus of the paper, which argues against an assumption by many industry analysts that telecommunications companies should charge based on usage instead of charging a flat fee. The numbers, which are a mere excerpt, are useful because once again, Odlyzko is warning the industry that it has its numbers wrong, and the last time Odlyzko had the numbers right and the telecommunications industry got its numbers wrong, telecommunications investors lost $1 trillion.

Alexander Goldman is a recent graduate of Brooklyn Law School, and recently passed the New York Bar Examination. He worked at ISP-Planet and ISPCON, was Chief Analyst for CTI’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grants, and had internships at the Federal Communications Commission and the Internet Division of the NY State Attorney General. At Brooklyn Law School, he was a Trade Secrets Fellow and won CALI awards in Contracts and Antitrust.

BroadbandBreakfast.com accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@broadbandcensus.com. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of BroadbandBreakfast.com and Broadband Census LLC.

Alexander Goldman is a recent graduate of Brooklyn Law School, and recently passed the New York Bar Examination. He worked at ISP-Planet and ISPCON, was Chief Analyst for CTI's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grants, and had internships at the Federal Communications Commission and the Internet Division of the NY State Attorney General. At Brooklyn Law School, he was a Trade Secrets Fellow and won CALI awards in Contracts and Antitrust.

Asia

Dae-Keun Cho: Demystifying Interconnection and Cost Recovery in South Korea

South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Advisor in Dae-Keun Cho, a member of the telecom, media and technology practice team at Lee & Ko.

South Korea is recognized as a leading broadband nation for network access, use and skills by the International Telecommunications Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

South Korea exports content and produces platforms which compete with leading tech platforms from the US and China. Yet few know and understand the important elements of South Korean broadband policy, particularly its unique interconnection and cost recovery regime.

For example, most Western observers mischaracterize the relationship between broadband providers and content providers as a termination regime. There is no such concept in the South Korean broadband market. Content providers which want to connect to a broadband network pay an “access fee” like any other user.

International policy observers are paying attention to the IP interconnection system of IP powerhouse Korea and the lawsuit between SK Broadband (SKB) and Netflix. There are two important subjects. The first is the history and major regulations relating to internet protocol interconnection in South Korea. Regulating IP interconnection between internet service providers is considered a rare case overseas, and I explain why the Korean government adopted such a policy and how the policy has been developed and what it has accomplished.

The second subject is the issues over network usage fees between ISPs and content providers and the pros and cons. The author discusses issues that came to the surface during the legal proceedings between SKB and Netflix in the form of questions and answers. The following issues were identified during the process.

First, what Korean ISPs demand from global big tech companies is an access fee, not a termination fee. The termination fee does not exist in the broadband market, only in the market between ISPs.

In South Korea, content providers only pay for access, not termination

For example, Netflix’s Open Connect Appliance is a content delivery network. To deliver its content to end users in Korea, Netflix must purchase connectivity from a Korean ISP. The dispute arises because Netflix refuses to pay this connectivity fee. Charging CPs in the sending party network pay method, as discussed in Europe, suggests that the CPs already paid access fees to the originating ISPs and should thus pay the termination fee for their traffic delivery to the terminating ISPs. However in Korea, it is only access fees that CPs (also CDNs) pay ISPs.

In South Korea, IP interconnection between content providers and internet service providers is subject to negotiation

Second, although the IP interconnection between Korean ISPs is included in regulations, transactions between CPs and ISPs are still subject to negotiation. In Korea, a CP (including CDN) is a purchaser which pays a fee to a telecommunications service provider called an ISP and purchases a public internet network connection service, because the CP’s legal status is a “user” under the Telecommunications Business Act. Currently, a CP negotiates with an ISP and signs a contract setting out connection conditions and rates.

Access fees do not violate net neutrality

South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes. The principle of net neutrality applies between the ISP and the consumer, e.g. the practice of blocking, throttling and paid prioritization (fast lane).

In South Korea, ISPs do not prioritize a specific CP’s traffic over other CP’s because they receive fees from the specific CP. To comply with the net neutrality principle, all ISPs in South Korea act on a first-in, first-out basis. That is, the ISP does not perform traffic management for specific CP traffic for various reasons (such as competition, money etc.). The Korean court did not accept the Netflix’s argument about net neutrality because SKB did not engage in traffic management.

There is no violation of net neutrality in the transaction between Netflix and SKB. There is no action by SKB to block or throttle the CP’s traffic (in this case, Netflix). In addition, SKB does not undertake any traffic management action to deliver the traffic of Netflix to the end user faster than other CPs in exchange for an additional fee from Netflix.

Therefore, the access fee that Korean ISPs request from CPs does not create a net neutrality problem.

Why the Korean model is not double billing

Korean law allows for access to broadband networks for all parties provided an access fee is paid. Foreign content providers incorrectly describe this as a double payment. That would mean that an end user is paying for the access of another party. There is no such notion. Each party pays for the requisite connectivity of the individual connection, nothing more. Each user pays for its own purpose, whether it is a human subscriber, a CP, or a CDN. No one user pays for the connectivity of another.

Dae-Keun Cho, PhD is is a member of the Telecom, Media and Technology practice team at Lee & Ko. He is a regulatory policy expert with more than 20 years of experience in telecommunications and ICT regulatory policies who also advises clients on online platform regulation policies, telecommunications competition policies, ICT user protection policies, and personal information protection. He earned a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the Graduate School of Public Administration in Seoul National University. This piece is reprinted with permission.

Request the FREE 58 page English language summary of Dr. Dae-Keun Cho’s book Nothing Is Free: An In-depth report to understand network usage disputes with Google and Netflix. Additionally see Strand Consult’s library of reports and research notes on the South Korea.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Luke Lintz: The Dark Side of Banning TikTok on College Campuses

Campus TikTok bans could have negative consequences for students.

Published

on

The author of this expert opinion is Luke Lintz, co-owner of HighKey Enterprises LLC

In recent months, there have been growing concerns about the security of data shared on the popular social media app TikTok. As a result, a number of colleges and universities have decided to ban the app from their campuses.

While these bans may have been implemented with the intention of protecting students’ data, they could also have a number of negative consequences.

Banning TikTok on college campuses could also have a negative impact on the inter-accessibility of the student body. Many students use the app to connect with others who share their interests or come from similar backgrounds. For example, international students may use the app to connect with other students from their home countries, or students from underrepresented groups may use the app to connect with others who share similar experiences.

By denying them access to TikTok, colleges may be inadvertently limiting their students’ ability to form diverse and supportive communities. This can have a detrimental effect on the student experience, as students may feel isolated and disconnected from their peers. Additionally, it can also have a negative impact on the wider college community, as the ban may make it more difficult for students from different backgrounds to come together and collaborate.

Furthermore, by banning TikTok, colleges may also be missing out on the opportunity to promote diverse events on their campuses. The app is often used by students to share information about events, clubs and other activities that promote diversity and inclusivity. Without this platform, it may be more difficult for students to learn about these initiatives and for organizations to reach a wide audience.

Lastly, it’s important to note that banning TikTok on college campuses could also have a negative impact on the ability of college administrators to communicate with students. Many colleges and universities have started to use TikTok as a way to connect with students and share important information and updates. The popularity of TikTok makes it the perfect app for students to use to reach large, campus-wide audiences.

TikTok also offers a unique way for college administrators to connect with students in a more informal and engaging way. TikTok allows administrators to create videos that are fun, creative and relatable, which can help to build trust and to heighten interaction with students. Without this platform, it may be more difficult for administrators to establish this type of connection with students.

Banning TikTok from college campuses could have a number of negative consequences for students, including limiting their ability to form diverse and supportive communities, missing out on future opportunities and staying informed about what’s happening on campus. College administrators should consider the potential consequences before making a decision about banning TikTok from their campuses.

Luke Lintz is a successful businessman, entrepreneur and social media personality. Today, he is the co-owner of HighKey Enterprises LLC, which aims to revolutionize social media marketing. HighKey Enterprises is a highly rated company that has molded its global reputation by servicing high-profile clients that range from A-listers in the entertainment industry to the most successful one percent across the globe. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Jessica Dine: Broadband Networks Are Doing Well, Time to Shift to Adoption Gap

There is a perennial policy debate over why the digital divide exists and what to do about it.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Jessica Dine, a research assistant for broadband policy at the ITIF

It turns out there are two digital divides in America. The first one is the familiar divide between those who have Internet subscriptions and those who don’t. Everyone agrees this is a persistent concern, with about 10 percent of the public lacking subscriptions at last count. But then we come to the second divide: There is a perennial policy debate over why the digital divide exists and what to do about it.

This second digital divide is once again on full display around the latest edition of the biennial Communications Marketplace Report from the Federal Communications Commission. Those who think that broadband should fundamentally be in the hands of the government will no doubt claim it shows America’s private-sector broadband system is a failure; we are a backward nation with inadequate service offerings that are too expensive for consumers and too profitable for providers. The solution to this, advocates say, is to weaken corporate providers and strengthen non-corporate alternatives, including government-run networks.

But the empirical evidence belies their claims. An evenhanded look at broadband data show that U.S. broadband infrastructure is not the problem; it’s a lack of adoption that’s causing the digital divide to persist.

Comprehensive data reveal that almost everyone in the United States is passed by fixed broadband matching the FCC’s 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload speed requirement. And the expansive coverage doesn’t end there — 94 percent of people are passed by networks at speeds of 100/10, and the majority of Americans have multiple providers at broadband speeds or higher. 4G wireless coverage is almost everywhere; 5G, still in its early stages, already covers the majority of the U.S. population at 93 percent and reaches competitively high speeds for most of the country. The first iteration of the long-awaited National Broadband Map confirms that deployment is strong. Modern broadband deployment in the United States outpaces coverage in the European Union and is competitive at the international level. And with the use of fixed-wireless and low-earth-orbit satellites continuing to grow, it’s only getting better.

As for prices, U.S. broadband has been shown to be relatively affordable. The ITU finds U.S. fixed broadband prices are just one percent of an average person’s income, proportionately lower than the prices charged in Japan and South Korea. While U.S. mobile prices are relatively higher in the rankings, they’re still significantly lower than one percent of the average income per person. Moreover, Americans are paying for high-speed, high-quality networks, as evidenced by the Ookla’s latest Speedtest Global Index, which put U.S. fixed network speeds in 6th place globally, above even digital frontrunners like South Korea and Denmark. By October 2022, U.S. fixed median download and upload speeds were each roughly seven times the FCC broadband benchmark.

Time to focus on what’s causing the digital divide to persist: Broadband adoption

But even though broadband deployment is already strong, the government has packaged billions of dollars for more to take place. It’s time to stop throwing money at deployment. It’s time to focus on what’s really causing the digital divide to persist, and that’s broadband adoption.

It’s one thing to have access to broadband service but another to “adopt” — to sign up for and purchase — that service. The United States has room for improvement when it comes to adoption. Ninety percent of households subscribe to some form of Internet connection — for context, that’s similar to broadband adoption in 10 EU countries according to Eurostat, and it’s nine percentage points behind the leader. Though U.S. adoption rates are not appallingly low, they still lag behind the country’s performance in deployment. In other words, a substantial percentage of Americans, given the opportunity to connect to the Internet, simply chooses not to.

While a simplistic policy solution would throw money at the problem to lower prices, that likely wouldn’t make a significant dent in the adoption rate. The U.S. Commerce Department’s Internet Use Survey finds, instead, that the main barrier to connectivity is a lack of interest, with 58 percent of respondents stating so. Meanwhile, price comes in distant second, with only 18 percent of respondents putting it down as their answer.

No matter how much money and effort policy makers put into closing the digital divide, they will never close it if they fail to target the true root cause. Pouring money into deployment under the misimpression that U.S. networks themselves are lacking or designing policies to regulate allegedly high U.S. prices and ramp up slow speeds — these are tactics that take scarce funds away from the more pressing challenge of adoption.

Jessica Dine is a research assistant for broadband policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. She has conducted research and written on closing the digital divide, the state of U.S. broadband, and how 5G can play a role in reducing environmental harm. She holds a B.A. in economics and philosophy from Grinnell College. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts
* = required field

Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending