Today the BSG has published a new White Paper with Value Partners, Broadband Infrastructure: The Service and Application Providers’ View.

Looking at the views of the broadband infrastructure from those who provide services over the internet today, the report find 3 main conclusions:

- Few respondents considered current broadband as a significant barrier to innovation today. Instead they suggested that it was just one of a series of end to end issues that needed to be considered when thinking about how to improve services for consumers. Few believed that simply addressing the bandwidth issue alone would be enough to deliver the quality of service that consumers are increasingly expected to demand.

- Consumer expectations of quality are increasing as ever-richer data services, such as internet TV and cloud based applications continue to be brought to market. As a result service and application providers are starting to think about how they can manage end-to-end quality of service in the medium term (18-24 months). This raises issues surrounding net neutrality and suggests this debate now needs to be tackled in the UK.

- The major players believe that next generation broadband will spur innovation and growth in new services and applications. However an upgrade in bandwidth alone will not cancel out the need to manage the multiple pinch points across the network, to guarantee good quality-assured end to end delivery.

The BSG is hosting a launch event tonight to debate the report with stakeholders.

You can access the report here.

My recent posts have involved tying current events back to the findings of our report ‘A Framework for Evaluating the Value of Next Generation Broadband’. One of the challenges we highlighted then was creating the need for business models to evolve to support investment in next generation broadband.

Considerable uncertainty existed then as to consumers’ willingness to pay for next generation broadband, which in effect is a premium service. There was some initial evidence, particularly from the US, that we cited, but ultimately there was little certainty for investors to go on.

It is willingness to pay, however, which is crucial for the business models of investors. Increasing demand for bandwidth and bandwidth-hungry services could not form part of a business model for investment unless consumers are also willing to pay for that increase in bandwidth.

So, almost a year on, how has this picture developed? Here I will look at three areas for evidence: consumer spending, particularly on telecoms, in the UK; consumer appetites for premium services; and fibre demand emerging from other markets.

The most obvious place to start is the economy’s impact on consumer spending. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bailout of AIG and others, and the onset of a global recession has hit consumer confidence hard. Retailers have struggled as consumers have kept their money in their pockets.

For the broadband industry, this has perhaps been reflected in a slowdown in the growth of fixed-line broadband subscriptions. Quarterly net subscriber additions across the industry have broken the cycle of the last few years and are falling quarter on quarter.

However, this could equally be due to the market reaching a natural saturation point, heightened by the growth in popularity of mobile broadband (and increase of mobile-only homes) and the reduction in the number of people moving homes.

Perhaps a better indication of the sector’s performance is the level of ARPU (average revenue per user) companies are achieving. Spending on telecoms by UK consumers has been particularly robust, indicated by the results of the consumer divisions of BT, Sky, Virgin, Carphone, O2 and Orange.

- BT Retail reported an increase in ARPU in their most recent results.
- Carphone’s broadband ARPU grew during 2008 (although ARPU will be impacted over 2009 by the recent Tiscali acquisition).
- O2’s parent Telefonica reported that O2’s ARPU is up year on year.
- As did France Telecom, who reported ARPU growth for its UK subsidiary Orange.
- Virgin Media’s Q1 results this year showed a year on year quarterly ARPU increase, as did Sky’s most recent results

Although many of these results include products other than broadband, such as fixed-line and mobile telephony, and pay-tv servce, these results add weight to the argument that in times of tightening consumer spending, household spending on communications could be one of the last areas that households are willing to cut. Broadband could perhaps be becoming an essential digital utility for the majority of households.

So what of consumer spending on premium products? There was initial concern that premium products would be adversely affected. However, recent results from Pay-TV operators have been promising, with Sky in particular highlighting a consumer demand for premium products through the success of their HD push (they now have over 1m HD subscribers, up from 465k a year earlier).

HD is a useful comparator for next generation broadband, as consumers are paying a premium to access the same service, but at a higher quality. While consumer demand for premium products has not been maintained across the economy, it is interesting for this debate that it appears to have been sustained in the in-home entertainment market.

To add to this, Virgin have said that their 50Mb service is experiencing the take-up levels that they expected. However, it is likely we won’t see useful, mature results for this service for at least 12 months, so it is too soon to consider this as evidence of willingness to pay.

Internationally, the US provides perhaps the most appropriate market to examine for evidence of willingness to pay. It was the main market examined in our report because: information is readily available; investment has been underway for a number of years and is more mature than other deployments; no public funding is used; and no price regulation is in place, so pricing and take-up is likely to reflect genuine consumer willingness to pay.

AT&T, with their fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) U-Verse service, has 1.3m fibre broadband subscribers, a take-up rate of 12% of homes passed by their network. They have reported a year-on-year quarterly increase in ARPU on their wireline business.

Verizon’s fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) service FiOS has 2.8m broadband subscribers, with a take-up rate of 27% of homes passed by the network. They have also posted a significant increase in wireline ARPU. Both have seen subscriber growth increase quarter on quarter over the last year, in spite of the recession.

These results do suggest that there is consumer willingness to pay for a fibre-based premium broadband service. However, caution must be used when reading across from these results, as broadband subscriptions are in part driven by the respective IPTV offerings of AT&T and Verizon. As such, it is difficult to separate out demand for high-speed broadband and demand for their video services.

There is also little sense of what broadband speed packages consumers are taking, although according to Verizon their most popular plan is their 20Mbps service (although this doesn’t necessarily mean that ADSL2+ would be sufficient, as with their FTTH service 20Mbps really means 20Mbps).

Following our report, BT announced an intention to deploy superfast broadband to 40% of homes, so they clearly see a business case for it. However, there is still some scepticism about whether a willingness to pay really exists for these speeds in the UK, particularly for FTTH - with BT CEO Ian Livingstone saying that “the economic case is not great” at the government’s recent Digital Britain Summit.

The evidence set out above is not conclusive, comes with caveats and ultimately is not direct evidence of the willingness of UK consumers to pay for superfast broadband. However, they are useful indicators, and a fuller picture will develop as this evidence continues to emerge.

We would be interested to hear from anyone who has views on emerging evidence of willingness to pay from other markets.

Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG

Last Thursday the BSG held a seminar with SamKnows, who were the technical partner on Ofcom’s Broadband Speeds 2008 report.

The seminar produced an interesting debate, with discussions ranging from issues of methodology and technical concerns, to the policy implications of the results generated in the report (James Enck at EuroTelcoblog has given his views on the evening).

One area that was of particular interest was the scatter graph (reproduced in the event handout) plotting line length versus average throughput speed. Although using straight line length (the straight line distance from a home to the exchange) rather than the actual line length, the level of variance in performance between lines of comparable length is pronounced.

We have commented before on this blog how difficult broadband is as a service to market, given the fact that the customer experience is to an extent out of the hands of the service provider.

Getting behind the reasons for this variance should be a central concern of policymakers and the industry alike. The causes of the variance could have important implications for the development of public and regulatory policymaking in this area. We wait to see what Ofcom’s second report on broadband speeds is able to say on this.

Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG

At an event yesterday Communications Minister Stephen Carter discussed the idea of a universal broadband commitment of a 2Mbps service to be available to every household that wants it, by 2012. The commitment could be included in the interim Digital Britain Report, expected to be published at the end of January.

The proposal would see a reform of the existing universal service obligation on BT, and would make use of wireless networks as well as fixed to deliver the service. The idea follows similar recent developments in other markets such as France, Ireland and Finland.

Whilst this is clearly a significant development, many will ask what it means for next generation broadband deployment in the UK? In November last year BSG Chairman Kip Meek outlined the idea of a universal service commitment for broadband in his speech to the BSG Reception. Meek’s idea sought to bring together policy in current and next generation broadband - a universal service for current broadband while encouraging investment in next generation broadband.

If the aims of the digital Britain initiative are to deliver economic as well as social benefits then a coherent approach will be required that addresses both objectives. While Carter referenced the importance of enabling investment in next generation services, it remains unclear, what, if anything, the DBR interim report will say on the matter.

Peter Shearman, Policy Manger, BSG

Ofcom yesterday published a report on broadband speeds in the UK.

The report is a first for Ofcom in that it is based on actual line testing, rather than consumer perception surveys, and builds on the work of the SamKnows team, who produced an earlier report last year.

Alongside the headline numbers, the report identifies the lack of understanding many consumers have about broadband, and particularly the factors that can impact the speeds they receive - an issue we have raised previously on this blog.

It will not be news to many that you are unlikely to receive the headline speed that you sign up for. However, speed can be impacted by a variety of factors, such as in-home wiring or your choice of router, which ISPs have little or no control over (and can be remedied by the consumer themselves).

This isn’t necessarily the fault of the consumer - they should not need to understand to a technical level the service they are buying. It can partly be attributed to the marketing focus on speed by ISPs, and we are beginning to see ISPs market their services on other attributes such as bit caps, which may help.

However, the crux of the issue is that broadband is a difficult service to accurately buy and sell. The actual service received is partly out of the control of the service provider, which creates difficulties and confusion for consumers.

If we are to have a proper public debate about the future of broadband (and now would be the time, given the interest being shown by our senior politicians) a more informed consumer is an important requirement.

The Caio Review recognised this, which is why one of its recommendations was for ISPs to make public their traffic management policies - consumers would then be given more information about their service, particularly how it is likely to operate at peak times.

This Ofcom report also seems to recognise this, laying bare as it does the capabilities and limitations of the network. We need to continue along the path of an increasingly informed public debate.

Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG

On Friday last week the government announced it would be undertaking a Digital Britain Report, led by the new minister for technology, communications and broadcasting Stephen Carter. This represents an opportunity for Government to tackle a range of issues in a coordinated, strategic way. Hopwever, doing so requires that the report is not a stock-taking exercise of ongoing issues, but a proactive plan of action that provides strong government direction.

The value of this report would be in bringing together the various activities going on in the area of convergence, across different departments, in a coordinated, strategic way. In doing so, government can provide a strong direction, with the ultimate aim of ensuring that the UK’s digital infrastructure (and the surrounding policy and regulatory frameworks) is fit for a world-leading knowledge economy.

Commenting on the report, Peter Mandelson stated that ‘the digital economy will be central’ to Britain getting through the worst of the current crisis and preparing for the upturn; with this focus the report could be a valuable contribution to the health of the sector and the economic activity that it supports.

Looking at the issues identified for the report, there are already numerous initiatives either completed or underway that are tackling these. Indeed, one key issue for government is how this report interacts with these ongoing activities such as the Convergence Think Tank or the implementation of the Audio Visual Media Services Directive. A report that simply reviews these various policy debates will be of limited value.

The opportunity here is to bring together a range of ongoing issues that all relate to convergence but often sit across a number of government departments and lack an overall coordination. Addressing these at a strategic level, with government providing strong direction and leadership would be of benefit to the development of the converging industries.

It is rare that a new minister already has a command of their brief upon entering a new role, but in Stephen Carter this is exactly what has happened. With his knowledge and experience he should be able to hit the ground running, and use the Digital Britain report to drive government action, rather than simply set the scene for further reviews.

Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG

Virgin Media’s statement today that it could be offering broadband speeds of 200Mbps by 2012 certainly puts the cats amongst the pidgeons in the ever noisier debate surrounding next generation broadband.

Last month, BT announced that it would invest £1.5bn to bring next generation broadband to 10 million homes by 2012. The speeds that would be available were quoted in BT’s release as 40Mbps to 60 Mbps for those homes serviced by a Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) deployment. Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) could, it said, offer speeds up to 100Mbps.

Although BT stated that the exact split of FTTC and FTTP was still to be determined, it did state that FTTP would be primarily focused on new build sites, whilst FTTC would be more “prevalent” elsewhere.

However, even in the unlikely scenario that it pursued a 100% FTTP deployment, delivering speeds of 100Mbps, the 200Mbps speed quoted by Virgin Media today knocks that straight out of the water.

The potential next generation broadband speeds that can be delivered depend on the technology being used. I could take this opportunity to harp on about the different potential capabilities of BT’s network as oppposed to the cable network owned by Virgin. I could point to the fact that the technology Virgin Media is deploying to deliver faster speeds, DOCSIS 3.0, uses channel bonding technology to (as the name suggests) bond channels together to achieve these super-fast speeds.

Yet a discussion purely on the technical capabilities doesn’t tell the full story. Indeed focus on these headline speeds alone misses the main reason why these announcements are interesting to the next generation broadband debate as it stands now.

The point is, the fact that such announcements are being made is exciting in itself.

Next month we expect to see the publication of a range of documents that will move the debate forward - the independent review on next generation networks being led by Francesco Caio, Ofcom’s regulatory statement on next generation access and the European Commission’s recommendation on the regulatory framework for a next generation environment.

Operators and investors need clarity about the regulatory framework before they can really get going on deployment.

The signals from both BT and Virgin Media are significant and welcome.

They and the rest of the industry now need regulatory clarity to make next generation access in the UK a reality, and not just a pipe dream.

uSwitch.com has collected data on the speeds received by those who visit their site, and compared them to the maximum speeds these users signed up to receive. Similar to the recent research from the BBC and thinkbroadband.com, they found that the majority of users did not receive the maximum speeds that they signed up to.

This is not a surprise, of course. The speed of a broadband connection depends on many factors, including the number of other users online at the same time, the distance of a connection from the local exchange, the tuning of the modem in the home, and even faulty electrical goods within the home, which are clearly outside of the control of ISPs (see this excellent atricle in PC Pro for tips on how to improve your broadband speed).

But is speed really the be all and end all of broadband performance? There are other aspects of a broadband service that impact on performance, as I have discussed before, and these are often overlooked.

Improvements in these factors that affect performance could make far more difference to the current broadband experience than improvements in speed alone.

While discussing something broadband related (strange how I keep talking about broadband with people), I was pointed in the direction of the PlusNet blog, which I hadn’t come across before.

This particular entry discussed the costs incurred by ISPs, depending on their choice of wholesale product, peering arrangements with other providers, costs incurred using transit providers and other factors.

I found this whole blog particularly fascinating, as it is not usual to find an ISP that is this open about their business (a number of their other entries are well worth a read, particularly this one on the impact of the iPlayer on their streaming traffic).

What the entry does highlight very well is the unsustainable nature of all-you-can-eat broadband price plans. Increasing traffic is increasing costs, and ISPs will need to raise revenues to cover these. It is likely that this will push ISPs towards bitcaps, and this could become an area of competition.

However broadband pricing develops, what is important is that the price of a service, and what that service provides, is clear and transparent for consumers. The Ofcom Consumer Panel and Ofcom are already looking at current marketing of broadband speeds. If competition moves away from speed to factors like bitcaps, it will still be important for consumers that the industry continues to work towards greater clarity, accuracy and transparency in its marketing.

Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG

Many of you will have noticed the adverts currently being run by a particular ISP, which focus on the superior speed of its fibre-based network.

This campaign taps in to the importance consumers appear to place on speed – as is demonstrated by a recent BBC Online readers’ debate about Next Generation Access.

However, while headline speeds are obviously important to consumers, particularly when they are not receiving what they feel they are paying for, download speed is not the only important characteristic of a broadband service. There are other characteristics of an NGA network that will provide value to users.

For example, although demand for faster downstream speed is uncertain, there is more certainty about the need for greater upstream speed given the increase in user-generated content. ADSL and ADSL2+ technologies, however, allow a median upstream speed of less than 1mbps. Users would almost certainly benefit from a greater upstream speed.

NGA is about more than just increased headline download speeds.

NGA is commonly now being defined by a set of attributes relating to, for example, improved quality of service, consistency of bandwidth across users and time, less interference, lower latency, and greater symmetry between upstream and downstream speeds. These characteristics, and others, would improve the Internet experience and provide value to users.

Faster downstream speeds are certainly not the only benefits from moving to an NGA network. It is important that the benefits of the other, less-discussed characteristics are captured in the debate, as these will make an important contribution to the enhanced user experience that NGA networks will provide.

Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG