PowerPoint slides - University of Southern California

advertisement

Three Business Models for Public

Access Wireless LANs

Chris Marsden

Annenberg School

19 November 2003

Draft for comments to: ctmarsden@yahoo.co.uk

+44 777 926 0376

1

Case Studies in Property Rights in ‘Free

Spectrum’

 Academic authors have typically concentrated on:

 Standards – Lehr & McKnight, Croxford & Marsden

(2001)

 Spectrum – Cave (2001)

 Developing technology in peer networks and mesh networks – Shirkey, Benkler, Lessig (2001-2) Werbach,

Sawhney, Sandvig (2003)

 This comparative law and economics study is of market developments

2

LANs and WANs

 Wireless public access markets are dominated by licensed oligopolists

 Typically voice-dominated – even Euro SMS and DoCoMo Japan have only 10-25% data revenues

 WAP was crap, picture messaging stillborn

 Hutchinson ‘3’ has 250,000 UK and 500,000

Italian subscribers – Vodafone launching mid-

2004

 Verizon launched San Diego and DC October

 Video phone and video download not killer applications - yet

3

What’s different about LANs?

 Short range high bandwidth 11Mb\s-54 Mb\s

 Mass market for base stations – very cheap

 Backhaul on ADSL not dedicated leased lines

 dependent on country, e.g. 256Kb/s in Spain, 8Mb/s in Japan, S. Korea, urban Sweden

 Security and roaming less advanced

 Note holes in WEP but look at USC security!

 Standards: single, global, unified, American

 WiFi and WiFi5 with 802.11g interim

 European standards dormant both HIPERLAN and

HIPERLAN2

 Spectrum – messy but workable, and FREE

4

Economic Case for WLANs

 No spectrum cost

 Minimal backhaul cost – varies with business case

 Minimal base station cost – $400-700

 Seamless networking unnecessary

 Data not voice – IP and hotspot use

 Network security, roaming and interface

IP-based – intelligent device

 Device simply add-on to laptop/PDA – corporate user installed base

5

Case Against WLANs

 Extreme short range – in-building effectively

 Sharing only 5Mb/s bandwidth in WiFi devices – 20 users maximum

 5Mb/s dependent on premises having multimegabit backhaul – leased line in US,

EU

 Security still poor for most users

 Start-ups have no subscribers or billing

 No real alternative to 3G or wire broadband – supplement model

6

3 Models:WiFi as 3G Complement

 Parameters:

1.

Partnership model

 With host locations and 3G networks

2.

Billing and subscriber management

 SIM-GSM interoperability

3.

Software integration

 User interface

4.

Hardware integration

 Security and QoS – VoIP or video capable?

 Backhaul costing and integration

7

Boingo; Classic Aggregator

 Earthlink philosophical foundation

 Santa Monica: 1601 Cloverfield Boulevard

 Start-up with strong VC support & Mitsui, Sprint,

Infonet

 T-Mobile has 3314 locations in US – 50 in UK!

 Claims 5100 hotspots (1900 ‘live’):

 1700 US, 2500 UK, 500 other Europe

 but UK agreement is not roaming, just location-finding

 468 California, 75 New York State

 53 NYC, 25 cafes, 19 hotels

 118 UK, 12 Ontario

 47 hotspot partners including Telecom Italia

 Earthlink and Fiberlink ISP partners

 3 months free for Centrino laptop purchasers

8

Boingo – Unique Characteristics

 Earthlink model and financing secured

 Very California-centric culture

 Using network of WiFi enthusiasts for value proposition

 Is Silicon Valley duplicable in Santa Monica?

 Caffeine addiction and Starbucks focus

 Invented here!

 Intel and T-Mobile support

 Aggregator has roaming but no genuine national let alone international network

9

Boingo – Transferable Knowledge

 Aggregation creates critical mass

 First mover advantage

 Very solid financial backing

 Simplicity focus on end user

 Software and systems integrator

 Branding of network and hotspots

 Boingo in a Box

 Additional activities solely to pump-prime market

 Verizon and T-Mobile using WiFi to stop DSL churn – so why pay $22 a month for Boingo?

10

The Cloud – Unique Characteristics

 Inspired Broadcast Networks uses gambling

‘fruit’ machine installed base from Leisure Link

 90,000 in 30,000 locations, 12,000 payphones

 3000 hotspots end-2003; 21,000 further orders by end-2006

 Pubs – are European cafes so different?

 Critical mass of users creates scale economies

 Wholesale unbranded network

 Backhaul solution belongs to parent

 Expansion into Europe (probably France)

 Based on local network and presence

11

The Cloud – Lessons for Others

 Backhaul costs critical

 Symbiotic relationship with telco – each is the other’s largest customer

 Openzone is biggest retail customer

 MyCloud orders 20,000 DSL lines for franchisees

 Franchisees see WiFi as ‘add-on’ to basic xDSL need – updating pub quiz games

 No branding – black box product

 High QoS

 Including VoIP to cannibalize 3G revenues

 Arguably only BTOpenzone would allow this

12

KTNespot – Unique Characteristics

 World’s most advanced broadband users

 Broadband must-have with universal appeal

 Triple play with 3G mobile and xDSL

 Note regulatory constraints in retail

 Backhaul on incumbent parent network

 VDSL at 8Mb/s available to consumer

 National coverage declared at outset

 First mover demolishes competition

13

KTNespot – Lessons for Others

 Leveraging dominance:

 Triple play replicable for e.g. Orange, KPN, T-Mobile,

DoCoMo in French, German, Dutch and Japanese markets

 First mover already used by Swisscom Mobile and

Austria Telekom

 Focus on low consumer price point requires massive subscription

 Difficulty of using terminal equipment holding back subscription

14

1. Partnership model -franchisees

 Boingo – aggregator = 5100 locations

 The Cloud – wholesale network = 20,000 projected

 Korea Telecom – integrator = 25,000

 Backhaul – franchisee pays B + C, KT uses parent network

 Role of fixed networks – BT as sponsor through BT wifi initiatives

15

1. Partnership model - backhaul

 Backhaul is highest cost

 Base stations ideally require dedicated 11

Mb/s

 That in UK costs $50,000 per annum

 In South Korea $50 per month

 Typically 512Kb/s ADSL – dedicated business lines at $50-100 per month

 Franchisee pays…

16

1. Partnership model - wireless

 Boingo and Telecom Italia

 The Cloud and BT, NWP Spectrum

 Korea Telecom and regulators – SKMobile

 Verizon-Vodafone and Orange – fence sitters

 What’s the price point for mobile data?

17

2. Billing and subscriber management

 Weroam – GSM-SIM authentication from

Togewanet ‘clearing house’

 TeliaSonera-Swisscom deal – includes

Megabeam UK, WLAN AG, Service

Factory, Homerun.

 Note – Nespot charges $9 a month above

$27 DSL charge – 250,000subs

18

3. Software integration

 Boingo interface – 24 hour promise

 Systems integrator as primary business focus

 The Cloud – using:

 Service Factory (TeliaSonera interest)

 Sun Microsystems – virtual WISP

 Nespot – private network only

19

4. Hardware integration

 Centrino co-operation with all 3

 ‘Boingo in a box’

 The Cloud – ‘My Cloud’

20

2004 – Market Developments

 National networks in UK and Korea

 Centrino chipsets industry standard with critical corporate user mass

 802.11g usable in East Asia and Canada

 Requires 50Mb/s xDSL for optimal use

 WiFi moving into PDAs

 3G roll-out – will they use hotspots?

 Having built the ballpark, will they come?

21

Download