Tower sharing in India

This article in Forbes contained some interesting tidbits about tower sharing (in India, in this case). Quoting the article:

Last week, Bharti Airtel’s subsidiary Bharti Infratel, Vodafone Essar and Idea Cellular said they would merge their wireless-infrastructure businesses to cut costs and improve efficiencies. Vodafone Essar and Bharti will each own 42% of the new company that results--Indus Towers--and Idea will get 16%.

The companies all operate on the global system for mobile communications standard. They will merge their infrastructure assets, totaling 70,000 towers, in 16 of the 22 demarcated telecommunication zones. Media reports said Indus Towers would fund expansion through debt and could venture a public offering two years on.

Other facts about the Indian market from the article are:

India’s mobile market added nearly 8 million subscribers in October, the largest gain in the world, along with China. But intense competition has ensured tariffs are as low as 2 cents a minute.

[... snip ...]

... as record subscriber growth overcrowds the airwaves, Indian telecom players are now engaged in a legal battle over precious spectrum allotments from the government.

iPhone in Germany

You might find this item interesting. This is very similar to the situation in France, except it is ex post instead of ex ante, which is less favorable for Apple. The comments on the Gizmodo post are worth reading. Is this a precursor of what we will find throughout Europe?

Thoughts on the G-Phone

Google's much anticipated wireless strategy was finally publicly revealed this week, after much speculation and anticipation. Google's approach was inspired by Tim Wu's "Wireless Carterfone" proposal (which I have blogged about earlier). Unlike Apple's iPhone, Google is proposing an open software platform (Android) that is open and will run on a variety of hardware. The platform, which is based on the Linux kernel, will be developed and maintained by the Open Handset Alliance. According to OHA:

Android does not differentiate between the phone's core applications and third-party applications. They can all be built to have equal access to a phone's capabilities providing users with a broad spectrum of applications and services. With devices built on the Android Platform, users will be able to fully tailor the phone to their interests. They can swap out the phone's homescreen, the style of the dialer, or any of the applications. They can even instruct their phones to use their favorite photo viewing application to handle the viewing of all photos.

It is interesting to note that the carriers Sprint and T-mobile were quick to endorse this initiative. They are, after all, the smallest of the "big four" in the US. Is this an attempt to ride on Google's coat-tails (following the boost that AT&T's earnings had after their exclusive deal with the iPhone)?

The responses of industry analysts have been mixed:

• Om Malik wrote "This is one massive PR move, with nothing to show for it right now, and it seems like there are other unknown reasons (Facebook ad platform launch perhaps) for the motivation here. No phones till second half of 2008 — in our ADD culture that is a lifetime."
• Kent German wonders if T-Mobile and Sprint will hue to the spirit of openness once the phone ships.
• Scott Anthony concluded that this is not a disruptive innovation. He writes that "[c]arriers have already placed big bets in the anticipation of earning service revenues from advertising and other future applications, which appears to be Google's plan as well."


• According to this item, ""I have yet to be convinced that Google's mobile strategy will create a big dent in the industry," said RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Rohan, who added that Yahoo appears right to focus on distribution deals of its services instead."
  

It seems that Android is a platform that will compete in substantial ways with Microsoft Windows Mobile, Symbian, PalmOS, and the Blackberry operating platforms. So why would developers and phone manufacturers be interested? According to this article:

• "Unlike with other mobile-platform providers, developers working with Android pay no licensing or other fees. They also will be able to sell their applications through a Google-created online marketplace without sharing revenues with the search giant. Google will make money on the ads served through the phone's browser, according to Google."
• "By not having to pay licensing fees to Symbian or Microsoft, cell-phone companies will save about 10% of their costs, according to Google."

What about carriers?

• How will it help carriers be more profitable in a business that is rapidly commoditizing?
• Large carriers like Vodafone have already made it clear that they want to reduce the number of operating platforms that they support so that they can roll out applications and services more quickly. Does Android help them? Will this affect the other platforms?

Update (2007-11-13): This item contains some videos that show prototypes of a phone running Android.

Verizon Wireless and Vodafone

As you may know, the second largest US wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless, is a joint venture between Verizon and Vodafone. This partnership has worked pretty well all in all, though it has posed some challenges for Vodafone, not the least of which has been the use of CDMA in the Verizon Wireless network vs. GSM in the Vodafone network. This has made it difficult for Vodafone to offer the kind of on-net roaming to its customers that it can elsewhere in the world.

The rumor reported inthis article, if true and assuming it is executed as reported, raises some interesting questions:

• Would Vodafone convert the Verizon wireless system? How would they do this? How much would they be willing to invest?
  
• How would this change the competitive dynamics between Verizon and AT&T in the US? Would it make sense for Verizon to continue offering its quadruple-play packages in markets where fiber has been deployed?
  

Mobile rates in Europe

Mobile rates in Europe are much higher in the US.

While comparisons are always challenging, a simple comparison is to look at individual plans allowing around 450 minutes. Vodafone Germany charges 69.95 Euro (approx US$ 90) for a package offering 480 minutes in the home region. A 450 minute plan from Cingular in the US is $39.95. A 400 minute plan from O2 in the UK costs 30 pounds (about $60 US).

International roaming rates are notoriously high. So last summer, the EU signalled that they were going to take action and cap rates. This press release provides some details, and an interesting chart in the back that compares the various proposals that are being considered.

A couple of questions come to mind that you might wish to engage in:

• Why are mobile rates so much higher in the EU than the US?
  
• Is capping prices on roaming charges the right way to go?
  
• If not, what are the alternatives?
  
• What does the table in the press release reveal about the loyalties of the Commission, Parlaiment and Presidency, respectively based on their rate preferences?