Networks & Network Providers

I took part in a panel discussion today about networks. Over seventy industry leaders from across the UK. Was FTTH (fibre to the home) a good investment? Would FTTC (fibre to the cabinet) be cheaper and just as good? How do network operators reduce their costs?

I was surrounded by people all intensely interested in networks. One person (a Welsh MP) pointed out that the EU defined broadband as anything above 150kb/s and some other organisation had defined it is anything above 256kb/s (from memory). The UK government had so far not defined what it means by “broadband” and therefore the ambition to get broadband into every home by 2012 probably achievable simply by defining UK broadband as anything above 32kb/s.

However….During the discussion it was easy to get caught up in the hype and technology and how you could get 40Mb to the home. Would the customer pay for it, and how much?

Consumers don’t by broadband because they want broadband – sure early adopters and techys might get into a “my broadband is bigger than your broadband” type of discussion, but, as the actress said to the bishop, it isn’t about size its what you do with it.

Consumers buy broadband as a means of getting to content. In fact going back to the basic telephone service people wanted to talk to other people. The networks provided the connection and the consumers the content.

Technology and assets give companies a barrier to competition. Their ability to control and use the technology allow them to dictate the way it is used and who uses it.

The record industry is a good example – recording studios and vinyl pressing plants were expensive and inexcusable technologies for new companies to invest in and entre the market. They were certainly not in the reach of the consumer. But as new technologies came along so it eroded this control/power. Pressing plants were sold off as what differentiated one label from another was not how well the record was made but what was on it.

Broadcasters had technology but also had the benefit of limited radio spectrum. The licensing regimes of the UK and Europe, meant that it was difficult for new entrants to make the investment and take the risk to bid for a license. This additional barrier (lower in radio broadcasting) kept them in control and complacent, beyond the natural life of their business models.

Anyway back to networks… These too are starting to lose their power as one network (fixed line or mobile) starts to look very much like the other. Why chose one over another: –

1. Does it work?
2. Is there a cheaper one that works just as good?
3. Is it hassle to get/maintain?

What has changed for the network operators is that the desirable/compelling/valuable content that customers want to get to, is not user generated, point to point of voice and data.

So what do network operators (service providers) need to do? Do they want to simply survive or do they want to transform?

Railway operators never got into air transport. Yet they were wealthy organisations at the time and could have easily expanded. Enormous synergies in scheduling time tables, selling tickets, reservations, engineering operations, logistics of rolling stock/planes, and staff roles. But they were rail operators, stuck with the technology and not the transport market need they serviced.

Networks operators follow the same route, married to providing networks and not the fulfilment of the consumers’ demand for content access.

So how do I see the network providers evolving, as apposed to becoming a low cost commodity utility? One thought…

The telephone directory was a way of customers finding out information about what (or in this case who) was on the network. As the internet grows (around 5,000 pages/second in 2008) it is increasingly difficult for the consumer to find what they want. Google (fast as it is) is throwing up a mountain of information to sort through. How many pages am I going to visit before I find the information I was after?  You Tube. Very funny clips, but if I have to spend 50-minutes watch dross, to find a 3-minute gem, I’m going to start to rely on my friends sending me a link in an email. Much more efficient!

As content (quality, professional production) gets onto the internet, how does the consumer no it even exists, let alone where to find it.  Is there a role for the network provider to be trusted recommender or aggregator of content? Is that worth paying for? Collect information on what I like and sell it on, but let me see some benefit. And not just in the adverts

I think it is almost impossible to predict what the consequences will be if 40+Mb/s is delivered to the home but some indicators now are not good.

Of the population that can get broadband, the take-up is way less than 50%. So not the “must have” technology.

Of the people that do have broadband around 50% get less than 1Mb/s download speed. Assuming that they are putting up with this (as they continue to pay) if not delighted, then 4Mb/s would probably fit their current needs not 40Mbit. “What about HDTV?” I hear you cry. Does anyone want to stream live HDTV over the internet?

• If it’s a film or recorded programme = download it
• If its news = why HD
• If its sports = why are you not watching in on a broadcast channel

Take the scenario that there are two adults and two teenagers, each simultaneously watching a streamed HDTV programme. 10,000 lines in an exchange area x 4 40,000 video streams. Will the backbone cope –

“Some will be watching the same programme?” Even if they are if two people watch the same if they start at different times they are different streams.

“Cache the content in the local exchange!” for how long? 3 hours of HDTV per person adds up to a lot of storage.

I’m sure 40Mbit to the home will come. It could enable social change (maybe even a revolution) with people working from home and a growth in cottage industries, a reduction in travel and CO2 emissions. Our kids are already used to interacting and socialising and would probably be easy to adapt and adopt this working environment. But will we look at the society that creates with pride?

ITV results are bad news, but what are they going to do about it?

ITV results are bad news, but what are they going to do about it?

Well it seems blame the regulator, the economic conditions, the growth in digital TV and the internet.

Have blamed everything it seems tat they are going to cut cost and look at revenue generation.

Cutting costs is what Charles Allan did for several years. Outside observers could say that this drove out creativity, drove away viewers and eventually led to where they are today.

Carolyn Fairbairn (ITV’s group strategy director) says that the TV advertising model is broken. That advertising rates in the UK are the lowest in Europe. She was speaking at the London Business School (3rd March 09) in a debate titled “Future of UK PSB Television”

Is the advertising model broken? There are lots of commercially funded TV channels in the UK that seem to be doing OK. Sure its harder but ITV has failed to adapt so from their perspective it is broken.

Who cares? No one really ITV is not delivering the audiances that the advertisers want or the programming the viewers want. Michael Grade, in an interview today (BBC Radio 4) when questioned about his strategy of using content creativity, to grow the business, said, that ITV were creating content for which they could generate a return on investment for their shareholders. The interviewer queried, “So what about the viewers?” To which Micheal Grade had a long pause (almost “I hadn’t thought about that” moment) before claiming that the content was attracting audience. NOT ENOUGH OF THE RIGHT ONES MICHAEL.

The denial of what is going on is what happens in many industries where the dynamics change and the incumbent/dominant players are unable/willing to make the changes necessary. Example the British Motorcycle industry when the Japanese arrived. The mechanical digger industry when hydraulics came along and the computer industry as generic PC’s took over from mainframes and narrow word processing systems.

ITV strategy must be to get cheaper home grown talent and innovative content. Don’t pay through the nose for Ant and Dec for Simon Cowell.

Use ITV 3 and 4 - try an Opendoor slot for independent producers, armature groups and University media departments (maybe even consumers) to showcase programmes. A talent slot rather than a talent show. Themed so that it isn’t random what consumers will see – Comedy, Drama, Music etc This may not be right but try something other than blaming everything else.

Put your viewers first and if they come back so will the advertisers.

Just ahead of the curve BT and Ch4

Comforting to know that I may be just ahead of the curve.

BT emerges as suitor to merge with cash-strapped Channel 4

Young eyeballs v Old money

The audiences for sport are gradually getting older. That is to say that there are fewer young people interested in passively watch sport on TV or at the ground. Why is this happening? Well cost is a factor, ticket prices increase and subscription costs for pay TV are barriers to access. Alternatives, video games, internet, DVD etc alternative entertainment options.
Yet audience levels remain high especially at the grounds of the top teams/events. Therefore the accountants are happy as they collect the aging audiences’ money. Yet as they take the baby boomer’s money in the short term they are building up a long term trend that could have a profound affect on sport. With less spectators, one outcome might be a concentration on the larger teams and events (a trend that some might see already) at the expense of the lesser teams etc.
I was at a conference recently and one speaker said that for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing it will be the pinnacle as far as global TV audiences, with forecast audiences for every subsequent event progressively falling. TV has the same aging audience problem.
In the case of commercial TV there is a dichotomy, on the one hand the advertisers want to get to the 16-35 age group while it is the 55+ age group that watches most TV.
So what is TV doing about it? I’m not sure it is doing anything. They seem to be doing “more or the same”, at best. At worst budget cuts from falling revenue impact production quality and the fear of failure makes the industry risk adverse. Then to top it the financial institutes and investors that hold the leash encourage repeating what worked last time again… and again… and again until ultimately it fails.
Advertisers are attracted to the 16 – 35 year olds, because the perceived wisdom is, if they capture the consumers early, they are likely to retain them. Example, if a collage or university student joins a bank now, even if they have no money now, the chances are will still be with them when they have money at 40+. The same applies to a whole range of white, brown good and MFCG’s in terms of brand loyalty. Whether this is really brand loyalty or apathy and whether it will hold true as the children of the digital age grow older is a different discussion.
Yet the 16-35 have less disposable income, lower paid jobs, highly active social lives, mortgages, young families etc all drain their disposable income. The other day I heard the term NEET’s (Not in Employment, Education or Training – or something like that) a 16 to 25 age that may have a part time job but effectively live off of their parents income, for at least their housing and food needs.
The 40 or 45+ have money and can, and do, pay for simplicity comfort, ease and quality. Part of this desire maybe why they tolerate the NEET’s (its easy). Despite this the ad industry (and their clients, the brands) and consequently the pure ad funded TV channels, are obsessed with this “sub prime” market. A market that prefers speed, interaction, change/new and cheap. A market that has and exercises choice with self in mind. A market with limited or no money.
And the point is, like sport, broadcast TV needs to look at the long term and ensure that it creates a habit and a loyalty that will hold viewers for a life time, not just until the end of the series/season.