Data traffic growth forecasts - AD Little's new report has a lot better methodology than most

This post originally appeared on June 5 on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

When I saw that Arthur D. Little had published a report on “The evolution of data growth in Europe”, on behalf of ETNO Association & GSMA, I rolled my eyes.
 
Both organisations have previously published terrible studies by consultants, riddled with flawed assumptions and dodgy multiplier "fiddle factors". I’ve loudly criticised Axon and Coleago reports related to the (un)#fairshare and #6GHz #spectrum debates respectively.
 
So I started the ADL report with trepidation, not helped by a strange typo / editing error in the first paragraph.
 
But actually, the report is pretty good, and I broadly agree with both methodology and conclusions, albeit with one major caveat.
 
It estimates usage of home and mobile broadband on the basis of hours-per-day of active use of heavy applications such as video streaming, gaming and possible metaverse-type experiences.
 
I’ve used GB-per-hour myself, to model passenger data-traffic demand on trains. It makes more sense than the usual Gbps, as most applications are “bursty”. It also fits the typical heuristics of human behaviour. How many seconds a day do you spend on social media?
 
The central prediction of 20% growth in fixed traffic and 25% for mobile usage seems reasonable. I could argue for 25/20 rather than 20/25, but it's fine as a rough estimate.

Importantly these rates for the next few years are well within the bounds of both fixed broadband (moving to #FTTP) and mobile (on #5G) without incremental investments in extra capacity, beyond the main "generational" shift & CAPEX. And that is driven by government policy and competition, not traffic load and congestion. The report convincingly shows that nobody really needs/values more than 100Mbps for current apps, so #gigabit networks have plenty of headroom.

My main criticism is there is no analysis of mobile device traffic carried over fixed networks and #WiFi. Smartphones used at home for video, gaming or social media will be c80% on Wi-Fi, and indoor usage is c80% of the total.

The report also talks about AI pre-emptively downloading content for “infinite scrolling”, but doesn't suggest it could be smart enough to do so mostly over cheap / low-energy fixed connections. (IMO, by 2030, governments may *mandate* cellular offload via neutral-host or Wi-Fi for indoor use).

I agree with the report's assertions that VR is in an indoor/fixed application, that most #IoT traffic is a rounding-error and that #Web3 is probably irrelevant. The #metaverse scenarios seem mostly plausible.
 
One area I think ADL underestimates is fixed broadband for video streaming. While Netflix and YouTube are “active” viewing, historically, many people just leave broadcast TV switched on, even if nobody is in the room except the cat.

If TV really goes online-only, then that becomes a genuine “waste” of capacity, unless you can advertise to pets.

Overall - really quite good analysis, which (ironically, given the sponsors) fatally undermines the #InternetTrafficTax rhetoric.

 

Spectrum: The shifting tone of the satellite industry

This post originally appeared on June 7 on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

I'm in Brussels this week at the Forum Europe European Spectrum Management Conference.

There's a lot to discuss, especially around #6GHz and 3.8-4.2GHz and the role of unlicensed and local/shared bands, as well as the upcoming World Radio Conference WRC-23.

I'll have more to say, but here I just want to highlight one particular theme that has been evident over the last couple of days: the tone of the satellite sector, which is here in force, especially with GSOA and Intelsat.

In the past at these #spectrum events, the #satellite industry has turned up with a familiar script:

"Hi, we're from the satellite industry. Please don't take our spectrum. We help with defence, aviation & connecting the unconnected. Please don't take our spectrum. We work tightly with the mobile industry, doing backhaul & IoT and timing sync. They're our friends & vice versa. Oh, and did we mention our spectrum? Please don't take any more of it"

But this time, it's different. The message is now closer to:

"We're doing all ths cool new stuff, including for wireless broadband, direct to device and defence. So actually, we want to keep all our spectrum. And maybe give back the old #mmWave spectrum you took years ago, that the mobile industry hasn't even used. Seriously, you want *more* spectrum to be taken from us and pre-allocated to 6G now? Are you having a laugh?"

There was a whole panel on direct-to-device, and satellite has fought its corner on the upper 6GHz (it can coexist with low/medium power WiFi, but not high power 5G) and fixed satellite links in 4GHz band. The future-looking 6G panel started a fierce debate on 7-24GHz, which covers various of the satellite incumbent bands.

There's been a few references to South Korea's regulator reclaiming unused 28GHz licenses from MNOs that haven't used the band. And there's a broad opinion that mobile/IMT is not a friendly partner for spectrum-sharing, at least for national MNO macro networks at full power. (Local private networks are OK-ish, it seems).

"An IMT identification is an eviction notice - the incumbents must leave".

"It's disingenuous to discuss coexistence studies - we've been here before and know how it ends. It's not our first rodeo with the mobile industry"

Now clearly this year, in the last few months before WRC23, is when arguments get more vigorous. But some of the stuff at the #EUspectrum event has been seriously punchy - Intelsat asked whether Europe should be focused on primacy in an amorphous "race to 6G" or a more geopolitically-crucial "space race".

My view is that the #5G industry is seeing some chickens coming home to roost at the moment. It overpromised Release 18 features with Release 15 timelines, got mmWave spectrum years before it could be exploited, and have left politicians and regulators with egg on their faces.

Meanwhile, the satellite sector is positioning itself as super-cool and important. It has a swagger that is being noticed by policymakers, and for good reason.

 

CAPEX in telecoms - beware of headline numbers

This post originally appeared on June 12 on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

CAPEX numbers are important in #telecoms. But they're also often collected and analysed in a haphazard fashion, or sometimes twisted and misinterpreted. There are examples that wrongly imply casual links or are carefully selected to drive specific policy choices.

- Telco execs watch CAPEX stats as they're important elements of cashflow & also signify key strategies and technology transitions
- Vendors watch #CAPEX stats to understand demand for new products
- Investors watch CAPEX as inputs to their valuation models, and as a barometer for company/industry health and prospects
- Policymakers watch CAPEX as it gets captured in "investment" statistics, and as an indicator for potential regulatory changes (or as a metric of success of previous policies)

Various ratios are commonplace, for both companies and the industry:
- CAPEX vs. revenues
- CAPEX vs. EBITDA
- CAPEX of telecoms vs. tech/hyperscalers
- CAPEX vs. R&D spending
- Fixed vs. Mobile CAPEX
... and so on

The problem is that "telco CAPEX" is also a very vague and malleable concept. Digging into it reveals many more questions - and problems with the methodologies and conclusions drawn, especially where headline numbers are concerned.

Some of the questions I'm currently looking at include:

- What counts as a "telco"? Are you including towercos, subsea fibre operators, municipalities building networks, MVNOs and many others?
- Are historic CAPEX numbers restated when telcos sell or acquire other businesses, especially tower spin-outs?
- Is it meaningful to compare CAPEX for 10 / 30 / 50 year assets such as #FTTP, which will generate decades of new revenue, with last year's figures?
- How do you separate CAPEX for basic coverage vs. incremental capacity vs. "generational" upgrades to fibre or #5G? A lot of CAPEX occurs even if usage is low
- How do you deal with leasing or other financing models? If CAPEX shifts to OPEX, how is it captured in the stats?
- What happens with "cloudified" networks? Firstly they rely on shared (often 3rd-party) assets, and secondly they are *supposed* to lower costs / investments. But will the lower CAPEX be viewed as a sign of distress, not modernisation?
- Is non-network CAPEX broken out (eg retail sites, central offices, datacentres etc)?
- Is "adjacent capex" included and if so, how?, eg in-building #wireless, #spectrum licenses, software development

I hear many commentators and lobbyists claim "#NetNeutrality led to lower CAPEX!" or "Streaming traffic leads to higher CAPEX!" or "There's an investment gap!". Without detailed data - and an analysis of causality - you have to question the veracity & meaningfulness of such rhetoric.

In summary - CAPEX is indeed important. But in fact it's so important, that headline numbers are often useless or misleading.

Ask for details on segmentation, methodology and definitions - if they aren't available, treat the numbers with deep skepticism.

#FTTX #telcos #regulations #networks #fairshare

Both sides are wrong in the Net Neutrality debate

I've been watching the ongoing shouting-match about Net Neutrality (in the US & Europe) with increasing exasperation. Recently there was a "day of action" by pro-neutrality activists, which raised the temperature yet further.

The problem? Pretty much everyone, on both sides (and on both sides of the Atlantic), is dead wrong a good % of the time. They're not necessarily wrong on the same things, but overall the signal-to-noise ratio on NN is very poor.

There are countless logical fallacies perpetrated by lobbyists and commentators of all stripes: strawman arguments, false dichotomies, tu-quoque, appeals to authority and all the rest. (This is a great list of fallacies, by the way. Everyone should read it). 

Everyone's analogies are useless too - networks aren't pipes, or dumb. Packets don't behave like fluids. Or cars on a road. There are no "senders". It's not like physical distribution or logistics. Even the word "neutrality" is dubious as a metaphor. The worst of all is "level playing field". Anyone using it is being duplicitous, ignorant, or probably both. (See this link).

I receive lots of exhortations from both sides - I get well-considered, but too-narrow network-science commentary & Twitter debates from friend & colleague Martin Geddes. I read detailed and learned regulatory snark and insider stories from John Strand. I see telco/vendor CEOs speaking (OK, grandstanding) at policy conferences. I get reports of egregious telco- and state-based blocking of certain Internet services from Access Now, EFF and elsewhere. I see VCs and investors lining up on both sides, depending on whether they have web interests, or network vendor/processing positions. I watch comments from the FCC, Ofcom, EU Commission, BEREC, TRAI and others - as well as politicians. And I read an absolute ton of skewed & partial soundbites from lobbyists on Twitter or assorted articles/papers.

And I see the same, tired - often fallacious or irrelevant - arguments trotted out again and again. Let me go through some of the common ones:

• Some network purists insist routers & IP itself are (at core) non-neutral, because there are always vagaries & choices in how the internals, such as buffers, are configured. They try to use this to invalidate the whole NN concept, or claim that the Internet is broken/obsolete and needs to be replaced. Other Internet purists insist that the original "end-to-end" principle was to get as close as possible to "equal treatment" for packets, and either don't recognise the maths - or suggest that the qualitative description should be treated as a goal, even if the precise mechanisms involve some fudges. Everyone is wrong.
• In the US, the current mechanism for NN was to incorporate it under the FCC's Title II rules. That was a clunky workaround, after an earlier NN ruling was challenged by Verizon in 2011. In many ways, the original version was a much cleaner way to do it, as it risked less regulatory creep. Everyone is wrong.
• Many people talk about prioritisation of certain traffic (eg movies) and how that could either (a) allow innovative business models, or (b) disenfranchise startups unable to match web giants' payments. Yet the technology doesn't work properly (and won't), it's almost impossible to price/market/sell/manage in practice, and there is no demand. Conspicuously, there have been no lobbyists demanding the right to pay for priority. There is no market for it, and it won't work. It's irrelevant. Everyone is wrong.
• Some people assert that NN will reduce "investment" in networks, as it will preclude innovation. Others assert that NN increases overall investment (on networks plus servers/apps/devices). When I tried to quantify the possible revenues from 25 suggested non-neutral business models (link), I concluded the incremental revenue would barely cover the extra costs of implementation, if that. There are many reasons for investments in networks (eg 4G then 5G deployment cycles), while we also see CapEx being replaced by OpEx or software licences for managed or virtual networks. Drawing meaningful correlations is hard enough, let alone causation from an individual issue out of dozens. Everyone is wrong.
• Most of the debate seems to centre on content - notably video streaming. This ties in with operators wanting to bundle TV and related programming, or Netflix and YouTube seen as dominating Internet traffic and therefore being pivot-points for neutrality. Yet in most markets, IPTV is not delivered via the public Internet anyway, and is considered OK to prioritise as it's a basic service. On the opposite side, upgrades to high-speed consumer broadband is partly driven by the desire for streaming video - revenues would fall if it was blocked, while efforts to charge extra fees to Netflix and co would likely backfire - they'd insist on opposite fees to be carried, like TV channels. Meanwhile, most of the value in the Internet doesn't come from content, but from applications, communications, cloud services and data transmission. However, they are all much techier, so get mostly overlooked by lobbyists and politicians entranced by Hollywood, Netflix or the TV channels. Everyone is wrong.
• Lots of irrelevant comments on all sides about CDNs or paid-peering being examples of prioritisation (or of craven content companies paying for special favours). Fascinating area, but irrelevant to discussion about access-network ISPs. Everyone is wrong.
• Lots of discussion about zero-rating or "sponsored data" paid for by 3rd-parties and whether they are right/wrong/distortions. Lots of debate whether they have to be offered to all music / video streaming services, whether they should just be promotional or can be permanent. And so on. Neither relate to treatment of data transmission by the network - and differential treatment of pricing is, like CDNs, interesting but irrelevant to NN. And sponsored data models don't work technically or commercially, with a handful of minor exceptions. Ignore silly analogies to 1-800 phone numbers - they are totally flawed comparisons (see my 2014 rant here). Upshot: zero-rating isn't an NN issue, and sponsored data (with prioritisation or not) doesn't work (for at least 10 reasons). Everyone is wrong.
• Almost everyone in the US and Europe regulatory scene now agrees that outright blocking of certain services (eg VoIP) or trying to force specific application/web providers to pay an "access" toll fee is both undesirable or unworkable. It would just drive use of VPNs (which ISPs would block at their peril), or amusingly could mean that Telco1.com could legally block the website of Telco2.com, which would make make future marketing campaigns a lot of fun. In other words, it's not going to happen, except maybe for special cases such as childrens' use, or on planes. It's undesirable, regulatorily unacceptable, easy to spot and impossible anyway. Forget about it. Everyone is wrong.
• Lots of discussion about paid-for premium QoS on broadband, and whether or not it should apply to IoT, 5G, NFV/SDN, network-slicing, general developer-facing APIs and therefore allow different classes of service to be created, and winners/losers to be based on economic firepower. Leaving aside enterprise-grade MPLS and VPN services (where this is both permissible and possible), there's a lot of nonsense talked here. For consumer fixed broadband, many of the quality issues relate to in-home wiring and WiFi interference, for which ISP-provided QoS is irrelevant. For mobile, the radio environment is inherently unpredictable (concrete walls, sudden crowds of people, interference etc). Better packet scheduling can tilt the odds a bit, but forget about hard SLAs or even predictability. Coverage is far more a limiting factor. Dealing with 800 ISPs around the world with different systems/pricing is impossible. The whole area is a non-starter: bigger web companies know how much of a minefield this is, and smaller ones don't care. Everyone is wrong.

In summary - nearly anyone weighing in on Net Neutrality, on either side, is talking nonsense a good % of the time. (And yes, probably me too - I'm sure people will pick holes in a couple of things here).

So what's the answer?

• First, tone down the rhetoric on both sides. The whole thing is a cacaphony of nonsense, mostly from lobbyists representing two opposing cheeks of the same arse. Acknowledge the hyperbole. Get some reputable fact-checkers involved, and maybe sponsored by government and/or crowdsourcing.
• Second, recognise that many of the threatened non-neutral models are either impossible or obviously unprofitable. Arguing about them is sophistry and a waste of everyone's time. There are more important things at stake.
• Thirdly, design and create proper field-trials to try to prove/disprove assertions about innovation, cost structures etc. Select a state, a city or a class of users, or speciallly-licensed ISPs to run prototypes and actually get some proper data. Don't try to change anything on a national or international basis overnight, no matter how many theoretical "studies" have been done. Create a space for operators and developers to try out creating "specialised services", see if they work, and see what happens to everything else. Then develop policy based on evidence - and yes, you'll have to wait a few years. You should have done it sooner instead of arguing. I suspect it'll prove my point 2 above, anyway
• Fourth, consider "inevitabilities" (see this link for discussion). VPNs will get more common. NFV and edge-computing will get more common. Multiple connections will get more common. New networks (eg private cellular, LPWAN) will get more common. Multi-hop connections with WiFi and ZigBee & meshes will get more common. Devices & applications will fragment, cloudify, become "serverless", being componentised with micro-services, and be harder to decode and classify in the network. AI will get more common, to "game" the network policies, as well as help manage the infrastructure. All this changes the landscape for NN over the next couple of years, so we'll end up debating it all again. Think about these things (and others) now.
• Six, try some rules on branding Internet / other access. Maybe allow specialised services, but force them to be sold separately from Internet access, and called something else (Ain'ternet? I Can't Believe it's Not Internet?)
• Seven, get ISP executives (and maybe web/content companies' execs too) to make a public promise about acting in consumers' interests on Internet matters, as I suggested a few years ago - an IPocratic Oath. (link)
• Eight, train and empower the judiciary to be able to understand, collect data and adjudicate quickly on Internet-related issues. It may be that competition law could be applied, or injunctions granted, even in the absence of hard NN laws. Let's get 24x7 overnight Internet courts able to take an initial view on permissibility of traffic management - not wait 2 years and appeals during which time an app-developer slowly dies.
• Nine, let's get more accountability on traffic-management and network configurations, so that neutrality/competition law can be applied at a later date anyway. We already have rules on data-retention for customer calls & access to networks. Let's have all internal network configuration & operational data in ISPs' networks securely captured, encrypted, held in escrow and available to prosecutors if needed, under warrant. A blockchain use-case, perhaps? We're going to need that data anyway, to guarantee that customer data hasn't been tampered with by the network. 
• Ten, ask software (and content and IoT device and cloud) developers what they actually want from the networks. Most seem to be absent from the debate - the forgotten stakeholders. Understand how important "permissionless innovation" actually is. Query whether they care about network QoS, or understand how it links to overall QoS which covers everything from servers to displays to device chipsets to user-interfaces. Find out how they deal with network glitches, dodgy coverage - and whether "fallback" strategies mean that the primary network is getting more or less important. Do they want better networks, are they prepared to pay for them - or would they just rather have better visibility and predictability of when problems are likely to occur?

Apologies for the length of this piece. I'll happily pay someone 0.0000001c for it to load faster, as long as the transaction cost is less than 5% of that.

Get in touch with me at information AT disruptive-analysis dot com if you'd like to discuss it more, or have a sane discussion about Neutrality and what it really means for broadband, policy, 5G, network slicing, IoT and all the rest.