Welcome to Fixed-mobileconvergence.com
A web resource on Fixed Mobile Convergence; GSM, Wi-fi, WiMax, Bluetooth, UWB & RFID integration

This resource is written by Christian Borrman, Mobile Director of icom, which develops web 2.0, Mobile VAS, MVNO and On Device Portal technology for its own titles, such as iViva and for third parties. Previously CEO & Founder of Virtuser, a provider of innovative MVNO and Convergence solutions since 2001. Previously Christian worked as a consultant with Mason Analysys, on pioneering MVNO and VISPs in the UK. Christian has spoken at, chaired and sat on expert panels discussing the benefits of FMC at major international conferences.

::posted by Christian Borrman 01:09am 20/11/06

What is Fixed Mobile Convergence?
Fixed-Mobile Convergence is the term used to describe a wide range of mobile services that converge elements of fixed communications infrastructure to complement the core mobile service. This encompasses a wide range of services, from simpler client led low Quality of Service (QoS) client device software like Skype or the more integrated Truphone, to the much more complex fully integrated BT Fusion Products. However they generally have the core of allowing the user or the network to take advantage of higher speed, or lower cost of local unlicensed of "soft licensed" access networks in local environments for lower value, high volume transactions, such as cheaper, longer calls or downloading larger files from home or the office. It is important to remember that this does not devalue the scarcer, lower capacity, higher QoS, licensed spectrum for higher value, lower volume transactions, where customers are prepared to pay the mobile premium of licensed spectrum. In fact, from my own experience, and some the first trials of both data and voice FMC that I carried out and/or managed, the total opposite occurs: the more dependent you become of a device and the more you use it in "cheap" mode, the more value you see in the product, and the more likely you are to use it in "expensive" mode. Back to top | Comment

:: originally posted by Christian Borrman 19:50pm 19/09/05; amended by Christian Borrman 21:16 25/11/06

FMC explained: brief
The term Fixed-Mobile Convergence is somewhat misleading. It is misleading mainly because the term implies that the two services somehow become one, especially when the buzz-word "seamless" is used alongside convergence. The truth is that the two types of network are so fundamentally different, not only in their provision, complexity and cost base, but also in the way that they are perceived and consumed that they will never truly converged. The user will always be prepared to pay a significant premium for convenience, which is where the mobile network, in a "mobile" scenario (i.e. not sitting at home or in the office) always has an advantage. It is similar to the premium we will always pay to drink in a bar or cafe or eat in a restaurant. However, if we are forced to pay these premiums or suffer the inconveniences at home (lower bandwidth, coverage issues) where there are ready alternatives, then this device will never become the "device of choice".

Essentially from a voice perspective; Fixed mobile convergence is essential if fixed mobile substitution is ever to occur, whether this is done by the consumer (Skype, Trufone) or by the network via trufone or BT Fusion type services, it is a necessary step for the mobile to substitute our home phone and using the PC to make cheaper calls, calling cards, etc.

Essentially, from a data perspective, FMC is essential if the phone is ever to replace the iPod, Walkman, portable movie player or blackberry device: It is hopeless to assume that our entire MP3 purchases would be done even of HSDPA networks, although premium purchases will be made over 3G/HSDPA, and ever more so, if the main traffic can be routed via Wi-Fi on devices like the Nokia N91. The same with the blackberry, even the Nokia E61 struggles against the appeal of the Blackberry, and its inclusion of Wi-Fi only comes into its own when FMC means the bulk of email can be routed over Wi-Fi.

The reason fixed and mobile networks will never truly converged, is that fixed and mobile networks are very different for two reasons; the first that the fixed network service traditionally ends at what is called a network termination point (NTP) with all the equipment owned and managed by the customer, whereas the mobile network service revolves around ownership, management and even subsidy in many cases of the mobile phone and SIM, both devices which are somewhat managed and owned by the mobile network. The second is that the fixed network (PSTN) Wi-Fi networks, and a broadband internet are all seen as a utility or even right that is sold solely on price, with low quality expectations, and very restricted access; the latter is a premium product and key part of most people's lives, for which they are prepared to pay a huge premium, and expect quality and ubiquity as a result. To try and "seamlessly" integrate the two would just undermine the "mobile premium". Back to top | Comment

:: originally posted by Christian Borrman 7:12pm 27/09/05; amended by Christian Borrman 21:57 25/11/06

FMC explained: Concise
As the mobile phone is becoming not just the the main phone but also main personal device, spanning multiple functions such as personal information manager, mobile music device and even digital camera, the amount of data that is transferred between the mobile device and the network becomes too large and too diverse in its value to the customer for all this traffic to be transferred purely over the mobile network. Furthermore, much of this data demand is driven by applications like music and photos, and even to some extent email, all of which are driven by and inextricably linked to the phone owners computer(s).

It would be very naive to assume that the person who buys one of the new music phones for example, does not already have an impressive collection of music downloaded to their computer(s) of which only part can be uploaded to the smaller memory of the phone at any time. Furthermore, this market segment most likely has or wants a wireless home network, and already has a broadband connection. To assume therefore that these people will only transfer music to a music phone over the mobile network, is, well very naive indeed. Furthermore it is not just data, VoIP applications such as Skype are growing phenomenally in their success. Skype can already be routed over Bluetooth of Wi-Fi to a PC or access point and over fixed broadband connection without the mobile operator with Microsoft phones, and with more phone OS by the time the year is out. Basically, users are rapidly working out how to get applications and data wirelessly over their home and office networks without the mobile operator being in the loop.

As phones and users get smarter, and data requirements soar way above the capacity or even time available to transfer this data over the mobile network, fixed-mobile convergence is the only way for a mobile operator or virtual mobile operator to be part of the whole value chain. The irony is that most of these high-end devices that are driving this data are often subsidised by the mobile operator anyway, yet many of them still risk being cut out of deriving any value from these devices, by insisting that all data should go over the mobile network. This is a mobile network where presently the cost of the data is still many, many times the cost of even the most expensive data it can cary (i.e. music) and before anyone even utters the notion of Skype style voice over 3G, let just clear up the fact that both the latency of mobile networks and the ad-hoc, peering nature of p2p applications like Skype pretty much rule out any possibility of an applications like skype scaling on mass with any reliability over 3G.

Fixed-mobile convergence is therefore a way for mobile operators to remain in provide rich media content to its subscribers in both the 'low value' local areas over 'low cost' unlicensed spectrum, in order to still be part of the chain and drive convenience sales in 'high-value' mobile environments over its 'high-cost' mobile network, without having to essentially de-value its network nor potentially compromise its existing voice and data services.

To understand the economics and (very basic!) physics behind this statement, please see the bullet points in 'Understanding FMC' below. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 7:12pm 27/09/05

FMC explained: more
I have been pioneering FMC since 2001, when I first talked on a panel in 3GSM, those who dared to even say the word were almost seen as traitors... it is interesting. In 2001, the mobile world turned its back on me in disgust, by 2003 they were doing all they could to thwart trials that companies like mine, Red-M & Norwood Systems, and even Ericsson's own Mobile@Home to market, by 2005 I did not have enough hours of consulting to give to FMC and now it is beginning to happen... In this time I have had time to reflect, learn and most of all get so bored of FMC at one point that I wanted a divorce and decided to design a a younger, sexier carbon fibre computer instead (as you do!).

The points of huge realisation, change, reflection, etc, over 5 years of FMC are:

• Wiring up a trial office for converged voice was going to cost £100,000's in place of the £10,000 for data convergence, with Voice ARPU going down, while with the latter, data ARPU going up! Essentially FMC began as a voice play (first trials were with an Ericsson R520 and then T68 handset with 512K and 1Mb of built in memory respectively), I believe going forward it will be more a data play: The day I can seamlessly use a series of Wi-Fi and 3G connections, with the roaming Wi-Fi always appearing as the network's Wi-Fi access, with the security and (lower) billing in the café hotspots managed via my mobile relationship.. this is the day I am not only wedded to my network for Mobile, but for home, broadband, etc, etc.
• Many believe FMC will be killed off by "bargain bucket" pricing by network operators. I can believe this as I had a business providing Sony Ericsson P800/P900 phones to large enterprises with voice and light data convergence going over Bluetooth, that was killed in one foul swoop by "very competitive" pricing around a "free P800/P900, and calls, text and data at prices well below the wholesale price we had at the time. The truth is that I now have 1200 minutes per month on my mobile phone, and some months I struggle to use them. So in a voice centric world, this may be true, as well as in a low data application environment like email. This is not the case however with the emerging data intensive content models, where convergence will be key. Last month, I paid £40 for around 50mb of data, most of it over GPRS, which is the fastest connection I can get in my house, despite being in central London(many forget that 3G handsets spend much of their time on GPRS connections!). I did however, download about 200mb just of podcasts on my Nokia N91 over Wi-Fi. These have all been done in my home (yes I am an insomniac!) or office (very interesting S60 podcast on Symbian Signed, for example, which in 17 minutes of podcast taught me more about application signing for an On Device Portal than I had managed in hours of surfing and even longer than 17 minutes talking to Risto Helin himself in the latest Smartphone show in London) all these 200mb, however, brought no value to my Mobile Operator, and at a cost included in the respective broadband connections. I may have been able to do this via 3G, but even if we leave the cost issue aside, it would be impossible if all my neighbours were also insomniacs and tried to download podcasts, mp3s, or worse, vodcasts all evening. I would be willing to pay to do this in any hotspot that is branded with the same colours and name as one of my Network Operators, but at the same time just too much fuss to get onto, even with a handset from them that has Wi-Fi.. This would be true convergence, yet the Network Operators are happy to sit by and let me and the rest of the "cash cow" enterprise/high usage customers do ad-hoc convergence themselves in the meantime with no added value to the Network Operator.
• Convergence has to solve a problem; I originally focused by convergence at large enterprises, where coverage in different offices varies, and most of the staff either live in Chelsea, where I do and 5 years on still do not have mobile coverage throughout my house (old victorian buildings, the Victorians, clever as they were, strangely did not plan for the transmission of Voice and Data over the 2.4 ISM bands and 900-2100Mhz frequencies to portable devices! and the houses are like Faraday cages) or they live in the depths of Surrey, where coverage is best described as patchy. I would dearly love to be able to have a broadband connection from my Mobile Network (which I now can) with a Wi-Fi access point (which I can) which managed my security, MAC address association and connection via this Wi-Fi as well as QoS via the vast amounts of information they already know about my handset and the readily available £20 boxes that will allow QoS over Wi-Fi remotely.. this would be a virtual SSID on the WLAN box called "My Network Wi-FI" which I could select at will in my house, and then, please, in their I do not know how many hotspots they boast in and around London but I have never managed to conveniently connect to! Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 23:12pm 25/11/06

3G / HSDPA and FMC
Coming soon... However, the thread of my thoughts on how 3G/HSDPA and FMC technologies will impact present FMC can be read in the above point FMC Explained; More. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 10:52am 26/11/06

Understanding FMC
To understand FMC we must first understand the general drivers behind it, as well as the economics and physics of licensed spectrum over unlicensed spectrum; basically unlicensed spectrum is a low Quality of Service (QoS) "all you can eat" way of getting large amounts of data around cheaply and effectively, and is usually connected to "all-you-can-eat" low QoS broadband connections; a mobile network on the other hand is a very expensive and finite resource connected to a very expensive high QoS Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN):

• Data requirements will soon exceed the ability of licensed spectrum to deliver it as a sole means of data communication. I.e. nobody can expect the contents of now widespread 1Gb memory cards to be transferred solely over the mobile network.
• Economics and physics of licensed spectrum: If you do not buy the above point, another way of putting it is; a mobile operator cannot afford to turn away SMS messages at £10,000 per Mb deliverable at the rate of 200 simultaneous handsets connected per base station for a period of maybe one second, in order to deliver music at £1 per Mb at a deliverable rate of 10-20 devices connected per base station for hundreds of seconds at a time.
• Mobile handsets are getting smarter and are less and less controlled by the mobile operator
• Competition between handset manufacturers is getting stronger, with convergence and convergence-type services being a way to differentiate

This drive to use unlicensed spectrum is all being fuelled by other factors such as WiMAX on the horizon, xDSL and home networking/media PCs coming of age, and customers doing convergence-type communications already anyway in low value proposition such as using Skype on their mobile handset via bluetooth or Wi-Fi over a wireless broadband connection without the mobile operators. Also as mobile handsets become smarter and move out of the "walled garden" control of the mobile networks. This along with the fact that memory capacity and fixed based bandwidth availability is growing way faster than mobile networks can deliver, and depreciating way beyond the levels that the mobile business model could bear, without even exploring the issue of mobile capacity limitations, at a time when the mobile network can collapse just under voice demands at major events or gatherings, then it becomes clear that it is neither in the mobile operator nor the publics interest to try and stuff everything down the mobile pipe just because it cost a lot of money to build. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 07:50am 03/10/05

VoIP and FMC
VoIP and FMC are interesting, mainly because an often overlooked point is that FMC merges the legacy world of circuit switched communications, with the packet and circuit switched fixed communications, as well as emerging "networkless" technologies such as Skype, which uses peer to peer technology over broadband and wireless technologies.

The differences? Well there are many:

To start with GSM mobiles use a codec that is only 6-13k and relies in breaks in the conversation typical with conversational voice. These codecs are then routed over a very finite, low bandwidth but high quality air transmission, and is then routed over a very expensive, full QoS Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) to circuit switched voice and packet switched data routing. Within this there is the ability to be registered at home and on a virtual location, constantly updated with not only the present location, but the most likely next location to enable handover from one mobile cell to another. It may be harder for some than for others, but to realise the amount of processing power alone required to maintain a conversation between one person going in one direction up a motorway with another person going in the opposite direction, requires many, many gigaflops and there is a cost associated with this, as well as for the PLMN, the base stations and the fact that the resource is very definitely finite.

At the opposite end we have Skype as the lowest common denominator of VoIP, a peer to peer network of users and hopefully some superusers (yes, if you have a powerful PC on a big internet connection, you are essentially "hosting" part of Skype's network) who keep their computers on as long as possible.

Somewhere in between we have typical VoIP connections, where usually a "fat" codec of 64 to 100k is used to record and send data in packets over the internet rather than a leased circuit of VoIP origins. The quality problems start with the problem of most DSL connections still being 128k uplink, with a 100k codec, plus overhead, well the quality issue even at the local loop is evident.

The problems start with the fact that , some of the early and even existing FMC solutions, were using the internet, and so were a form of VoIP, but were actually mimicking circuit switched data over the internet, with even more overhead. Others try to use a GSM type system for location, which apart from the processing power required for it to work, the power requirements alone on a battery driven device over Wi-Fi cause problems alone. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 01:29am 20/11/06

Near Field communications
NFC will be key to convergence, even though it is still in its infancy. Why? I believe for two reasons:

Firstly; it is a logical continuation of the "divergence" of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi: Wi-Fi is high bandwidth, high range and is best suited to established relationships, but let's face it, on battery limited devices it is best turned off when not in use. Bluetooth is much less frugal and can easily be left on, despite the many who should know better who persistently seem to think they get better battery life with bluetooth turned off. Bluetooth's power control, of up to 100mw but usually well under 10mw, looking for devices within a few metres, compared to a GSM radio device constantly in contact with a mast up to 100's of metres away and the ability to scale up to 1Kw, well you can work it out for yourself. However, even Bluetooth devices require power, which is expensive and hard to be omnipresent. I have networked devices for use within buildings that are as low as $1000 and solar powered ones for Billboards are much more expensive. Either way, we neglect to factor in here that in commercial environments the professional installation will be the larger cost, always. However, NFC can be built into a poster, stuck to a bus shelter or even the floor around a billboard for a fraction of the cost. and with even the "Bluetooth chews your battery" hoi polloi silenced.

Secondly; as phones become smarter, Bluetooth becomes less secure as a method of identification (BT MAC becomes spoofable post BT v1.1, for example) whilst NFC should remain, in its read-only form, more secure, or at least another form of ID that can be spoofed but to know all of them is harder. It is similar to the telephone or internet banking principle, people may get hold of your account number or signature or mother's maiden name independently, but to know all of them is seen to be hard enough to be a reasonable prevention. The same is true for mobile commerce and connection: someone may learn your MAC address and WEP key, or even Bluetooth address and pass code, especially if it is "123", however to have those in the same device and obtain your NFC number association via the network is sufficiently hard to crack in order for the next wave of "WEP on the fly" ID check and even pre-pay card payments to be authorised.Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 01:28am 20/11/06

Bluetooth or Wi-Fi
Unfortunately I must confess that I, like most people, especially those employed in the industry, have an unhealthy obsession with speed; the faster the better. While this is true in some cases, it is most certainly not the case when we are talking about mobile devices with small batteries, constrained processors and memory. high bandwidth needs fast processors and more memory to buffer the transfer, all of which consume more power and ultimately mean more expensive phones and shorter battery life. From here there are two other considerations to be taken into account; the first is cost and the second is service:

From a cost point of view, when I spoke on a panel regarding FMC with T-Mobile's David Hytha at Wicon 2005 in London, he confirmed that 75% of the 15 million phones he buys on behalf of his operator per year are under $100. He went on to explain, for those who were still blinded by their Wi-Fi obsession, that this means convergence for the masses will be 2G and bluetooth, with 3G and bluetooth & Wi-Fi remaining the reserve of high-end devices. It is important to remember, that while bluetooth chips made it into the majority of phones by merely hitting price targets, they were powered by a then general increase in memory that phone have undertaken anyway. Even if the wi-fi chip is cheap enough to hit that barrier, to make use of the extra bandwidth and power, the memory, processor battery (and even screen) need to be increased in line, and with that increases the cost. As an aside, it was also interesting to hear Mr. Hytha say that they see convergence as a way to get people talking. As far as he was concerned, people still do not talk enough over their mobile; convergence is a simple way to drive this up, and with that the use on the mobile network will increase. It is also no secret that as battery level drops, people stop using their phone and cut their calls short; this is not good business for a mobile operator.

From a service point of view things get even more interesting. After having spent 5 years testing virtually every way possible to get voice and data over Bluetooth AND Wi-Fi, I often wonder if people who see convergence as Wi-Fi only, apart from being totally removed from the economics of industry as we have seen in the pervious paragraph, have actually tested the two or even implemented a working convergence trial in a customer environment. It is possible to have a phone in mobile and bluetooth standby for many days on a single battery charge - Not so with a Wi-Fi device I have seen so far (despite promises that have never materialised into a physical handset from two manufacturers). It is also possible to position, sense the presence and signal strength of a mobile device reliably over bluetooth and the mobile networks without having to establish a power and resource consuming connection- this is not possible to do with Wi-Fi. There are advantages to Wi-Fi however, besides the obvious benefits of bandwidth there is the advantage of range; however, from our exhaustive tests, range means nothing if you cannot reliably position the device to control power consumption and handover between cells.

The simple conclusion from these two paragraphs, is that if 75% of your users are constrained by cost and are Bluetooth only, but up to 25% of your customers will demand Wi-Fi, the answer lies in using both Bluetooth AND Wi-Fi for convergence. Investing in a system that excludes one or the other, or means starting with one and moving to the other, is a seriously flawed strategy.

It seems that Wi-Fi and bluetooth are "diverging" in the convergence world (you have to love the irony!) with Wi-Fi being led by mainly the players outside of the industry (Skype, Trufone) and those within the industry using both bluetooth and Wi-Fi for the above reasons (cost, availability, and arguably quality). The divergence seems to be for two reasons, obviously the lower cost advantage of Bluetooth, but also the fact that Bluetooth is finally showing its true colours and teeth (sorry could not resist pun!) in the shape of:

• the Bluetooth stereo headset profiles and media devices like the Sony Ericsson MMV-200, Nokia 42-W, or the equally imaginatively titled Motorola DC800, that are much cheaper and simpler than a Wi-Fi equivalent such as trying to use my Nokia N80 with the bundled Home Media Server software and a home network, to get an idea of the problems see an example thread on a symbian forum. UPnP or no UPnP, at the end of the day the profile of a handset means I can see the files on my media PC and NAS as home, I can download the files, and I can even play the files on the host PC via the N80, but I cannot stream the files to my handset: so if all I am left to do in terms of streaming is play the files on my phone via a Wi-Fi hub, Media PC connected to speakers, I my as well plug the diminutive bluetooth gateway into an always on Hi-Fi and have done...
• The inclusion of UWB with Bluetooth and ever enhanced data rates, will only improve on the above and below speed and usability.
• The security of Bluetooth is just so simple: yes it is generally only 128bit, but the amount of data transferred means hacking it like an equivalent 128 bit Wi-Fi key is highly unlikely, it is so simple to add this security, and at the end of the day the mere facts like the increased difficulty to spoof a Bluetooth address vs. a Wi-Fi one, the reduced range and lower throughput make bluetooth much better for ad-hoc, social and mobile experiences, like exchanging photos, contacts etc. connecting to your friend's hub via a sharing of a short key rather than a web interface, and the fact that products like Nokia's sensor only work over bluetooth, means that bluetooth lends itself to a more sociable, youth orientated, ad-hoc level of convergence, whilst Wi-Fi to a more trusted, fixed environment (home and/or work + commercial hotspots owned by your network operator) where the higher bandwidth and flexibility of reach are required also.
• Enhanced data rates and PC Suite software that now actually works over Bluetooth. The truth is, in the connected world, the most up to date and even only PIM list you have is on your laptop and/or phone, and synching over Wi-Fi or even over mobile is a task that is best left to people with a lot of time on their hands.

Back to top | Comment

:: originally posted by Christian Borrman 07:52am 03/10/05; amended by Christian Borrman 13:22pm 26/11/06

FMC Models
So far there appear to be a few FMC market models emerging.

• One clear model is the vertical model, whereby an existing telecoms provider uses convergence to complement its existing mobile or fixed offering offering. These include fixed operators that have previously not seen enough value to warrant a pure MVNO approach, as well as mobile operators looking to grasp all the lucrative revenue generating opportunities as well as churn reduction of tying broadband and fixed communications into a mobile service.
• A second is content providers, who have quite rightly shied away from MVNOs in a pure mobile format due to the fact that the cost of data presently can cost many times that of even the most expensive content. The principle among these contenders are music related players, but also be prepared to see imaging players, Video on Demand (VoD)/broadcasting players, as well as lifestyle players in this market.
• Telematics, m2m, data opportunities are endless, however, nearly all of them come into their own when linked to the enhanced location, positioning, coverage and tacking abilities of a converged mobile network, as well as of course the simple issue of local bandwidth.
• Enterprise based companies. Enterprises are still slow at buying into mobile data, as any device that can only connect over a mobile network, will remain just that; a mobile device. To become the main device of any enterprise user, from an operator terminal to an executive productivity tool, the device must be able to communicate in the office and home over local access network before mass adoption can occur. There are many people who today use laptop computers who could or would move to a smartphone/PDA or custom terminal that integrated both mobile and wireless networks.
• IT Companies. It is no secret that all the big IT players have looked at MVNOs at one point or another, however, the pure mobile angle is too far removed from their business model, and could potentially create huge issues with customers suddenly receiving astronomical bills for data. The converged model opens up many, many opportunities. Expect to see Dell, Apple, Samsung and even Sony move in this direction. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 08:05am 03/10/05

FMC Report
Coming soon..Back to top | Comment

FMC and IMS
IMS has a huge amount of hype surrounding it, and some people even confuse it with convergence, quoting IMS as a form of convergence alongside UMA, SCAN and other convergence movements. IMS enables rich media over any intelligent network, however it does not enable the intelligent network.

What is interesting however, is that while IMS is interesting in itself as a way to provide services to users over 3G, IMS is even more powerful over a converged network that can see for example that a user is not only in a certain street or postal code as a mobile network can see, but even which house number or even which cafe, bus stop, or shop the user is in. In this scenario the converged mobile network operator or MVNO can start to offer truly value added services, like a taxi to your door, a purchase in the shop you are in, or even another coffee to your table in the hotspot, without leaving your laptop and table. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 08:13am 03/10/05

FMC and the MVNO
FMC is a way for an MVNO not only to differentiate from and deliver value to its host MNO, but also minimises the possibility of the MVNO creating capacity issues for its host MNO. More on this coming soon... Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 07:14am 03/10/05

Glossary
Glossary of all the terms used above on Virtuser website. Back to top | Comment

Links
Diagrams:
Mobile and the brand
Other Resources:
Mobile Virtual Networks (MVNO)
Virtuser
Next Generation MVNO Report... Back to top

FMC and the Handset
The handset has been the achilles heel of FMC. The mobile mass market is now dealing in millions of identikit handsets, while FMC is dealing with much smaller numbers. This combined with the fact that most of the bigger handset manufacturers main business comes from mobile operators, and many mobile operators are more in the "follower" category in terms of branding and service offering (see Brand), and therefore are not beyond the alleged use of "influence" to thwart an FMC operation it sees as potentially damaging its business. Interestingly however, the ODM/OEM market is developing rapidly, and truly open operating systems combined with these devices mean that the handset has no reason to thwart the well planned convergence model, and the leading handset manufacturers have no desire to become "followers" and trail behind the ODM/OEM manufacturers and miss out on the rich media future, just to keep the more monolithic of mobile operators happy, and so things can only get better. Finally, as a bizarre twist of fate, there were rumours that mobile operators would use the lucrative network infrastructure and maintenance business to exert further influence beyond purchase power of handset development and features - however, as more and more companies such as Huawei, Lucent and even the IT giants like HP move into offering infrastructure, they are unlikely to see the FMC business opportunity thwart sales of their budding new business for the sake of buying a few thousand handsets from an ODM/OEM handset manufacturer. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 08:21am 03/10/05

FMC and the SIM
Few people realise the importance of the SIM and FMC. The value of the GSM and UMTS mobile lies in the customer relationship and therefore the SIM... The successful FMC business does therefore also. Additionally, there is a rich data market waiting to be explored, but problems of security scares over unlicensed spectrum networks remain an issue for some users, as does the rigmarole of handling security themselves. Through the SIM and FMC, the mobile operator can handle these issues for the customer, hence adding value to a part of the data chain that is very low value at present and therefore being able to derive revenue as well as potentially reduce churn. More coming soon... Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 07:50am 04/10/05

FMC and the Network
It is interesting that most people see FMC as being driven purely by consumer demand and competition.. However, FMC is also being driven by the network. The mobile network backbone was built on legacy leased lines that were perfectly adequate for the one and only service that was ever foreseen; voice. However, as data demand increases, and the all IP network looms, the desire to offload a lot of the lower value traffic onto cheaper IP connections for backhaul, and even be able to charge the customer for the delivery in terms of DSL, is obviously a strong background driver for FMC. Back to top | Comment

:: posted by Christian Borrman 07:47am 04/10/05

Contact / Comment
Contact

©Copyright 2001-2006 Christian Borrman, All Rights Reserved