Some are skeptical about Verizon’s One Fiber plan for Boston, said to be a test of the new economics of FiOS.  Skeptics say Verizon really will use One Fiber to provide the transport and distribution network for coming small cell deployments.  That much is likely correct.  The potential disagreement is what happens once Verizon has made those investments. 

Verizon suggests the fiber network, in place and generating value for the small cell network and mobile side of the business, will in turn create better economics for deploying additional fiber to consumer neighborhoods.  Some see the announcement Verizon made in April 2016 that it was restarting its optical fiber deployment plan for Boston as a case of “bait and switch,” arguing that Verizon implied full FTTH to the home construction. 

To be fair, Verizon execs have talked about building a multi-purpose network supporting any number of uses, from IoT to mobility to consumer access.  It might be fair to note that whatever various observers might have read into that One Fiber announcement, what Verizon plans is perhaps not a traditional FiOS build, but a focus on the distribution network first, to support enterprise apps (fiber to tower and fiber to small cell sites to support mobile communications, IoT communications), also creating new economics for neighborhood deployment of FTTH. 

In some ways, Verizon appears to have further adjusted its consumer access strategy using the “neighborhood” model pioneered by Google Fiber.  Essentially, that new approach builds FTTH neighborhood by neighborhood, focusing by that means on improved business case outcomes in the early going. 

The additional new thinking is that gigabit access (focusing on delivered bandwidth rather than access technology) will be a capability that can be delivered with using fiber to the home.  Cable companies already sell gigabit internet access over hybrid fiber coax.  Coming 5G mobile networks will, at least at first, also offer opportunity for fixed wireless at gigabit speeds. 

So the big mental shift is towards consumer-received speeds and latency, not the access platform as such.  Verizon likely believes (and many others tend to agree) that 5G, used to support fixed wireless, can deliver gigabit speeds to consumers.  The One Fiber plan creates the infrastructure to do so. 

In that sense, One Fiber does represent new investment that speaks directly to gigabit internet access for consumers, even if it does not necessarily always require FTTH construction. 

That is among the many potential strategy choices Verizon and others can contemplate, without choosing fiber to home platforms on a ubiquitous basis, in all cases. 

To be sure, NG-PON2 (Next-Generation Passive Optical Network 2) might help, as it specifies throughput of 40 Gbps, corresponding to up to 10 Gbps speeds for each subscriber.  In a commercial sense, that might be “too much” bandwidth for today’s consumers and business models. 

Even 1 Gbps is more bandwidth than most consumers or businesses can meaningfully use, beyond the simple observation that bandwidth-per-user is a real benefit. 

One Fiber is the sort of shift in optical fiber deployment and consumer access business model that might escape proper evaluation if we remain fixated on access platform rather than consumer-delivered bandwidth.  Bandwidth matters.  How we deliver it does not, in the old way.  After many decades of arguing over which fixed network access platform is “better,” or has better economics, we are moving into an era when platform choices can be quite varied, while still meeting the internet access business goals: selling more bandwidth, at a profit, to more subscribers. 

Popular posts from this blog

You can see where this is going.  Younger users text more than they talk, and though today's users 25 and above still talk more than they text, the usage pattern is uniform: younger age cohorts text more than older age cohorts. 

So as each age cohort advances, one might predict that texting behavior will grow over time.  How much it grows is the only real question. 

Users 18 or younger actually"talk" about as much as users 55 to 64.  One suspects an awful lot of "voice" activity is of the coordination and collaboration sort, so that younger and mid-life workers might be in work groups that require more coordination than workers 55 to 64. 

Industry competitors normally pay money to track their market share versus their "real" competitors.  The problem is that, in rapidly-changing and porous new markets, the legacy competitors--even when they are the most benchmarked firms--are not the strategic competitors.  These days, many service providers would say that "Google" or other app providers are their key competitors, even as they continue to benchmark against others in their "narrow" markets (mobile market share, or fixed network video or internet access). 

The biggest single change in the internet value chain between 2005 and 2010, for example, was the shift of revenue from telcos to Apple, Microsoft and Google.  Telecom providers lost 12 percent of profit, while Apple, Microsoft and Google gained 11 percent.  source: McKinsey Nevertheless, the strategic issue is diminishing relevance.  The "access to the internet" and associated service provider functions simply represent less value in th…

By now, telecom executives are well aware of the “disruption” market strategy, whereby new entrants do not so much try and “take market share” as they attempt to literally destroy existing markets and recreate them.  Skype and VoIP provider one example.  The “Free” services run by Illiad provide other examples.  Most recently, we have seen Reliance Jio disrupting the economics of the mobile market in India, offering free voice in a market where voice drives service provider revenues. “ Free” is a difficult price point in most markets.  But free voice forever is among the pricing and packaging foundations for Reliance Jio’s fierce attack on India’s mobile market structure. “ Free voice” does not only lead to Jio taking market share, but reshapes the market, destroying the foundation of its competitor business models.  At the same time, Jio hopes to become the leader in the new market, driven by mobile data, with far-higher usage and subscribership, and vastly-lower prices.  source: GSMADisruption…

Gary Kim has been a communications industry analyst, consultant and journalist for more than 35 years.  He currently works mostly as a content developer (marketing copy, white papers, applied research, conference and blog content. 

He speaks frequently at industry events, has written one book, half a dozen major market studies and 24,000 articles.  His work is noted for its examination of business model issues. 

He was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst.  He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.