Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Dean Bubley: WiFi phones: look, will you just forget about hotspots?

Dean Bubley posts a lengthy discourse on Wi-fi handsets and hot spots at the Disruptive Wireless blog. He states:

Look, all of you, will you just forget about hotspots for WiFi phones? It's irrelevant, a niche of a niche of a niche. Dual-mode phones are about using VoWLAN in the home & at work. Period. Everything else VoWLAN-related - hotspot, hotzone, plane, donkey, whatever - is noise. Secondary or tertiary - remind me again in 2009, and I might be persuaded to care. Sorry FON, T-Mobile, The Cloud, city WiFi evangelists, but unless I'm a top-1% prosumer enthusiast user, or a street-cleaner spending all day outdoors, it's an irrelevance. Yes, I know, I've talked before about running Skype-over-WiFi from my laptop in a hotel, but that's different: I'm using the hotspot for data already anyway, I've signed up using a full-screen browser & credit card, I'm avoiding heinous international roaming fees, I'm not moving, it's not dual-mode with cellular (seamless or otherwise) and I'm only making outbound calls.
Bubley then lists out why he thinks this is nonsense:
  • Fixed-mobile combined operators (France Telecom, Telecom Italia etc) want to launch innovative triple/quadplay services leveraging their home broadband user base. Yes, this might include cheap voice at home (using WiFi or maybe cellular-only solutions), but it'll also be relatively sophisticated with other "converged" features like video, network-resident address book & other valuable, churn-reducing capabilities. Some of these will succeed, but only with a lot of effort in areas like customised phones, dedicated home gateways & 100 other niggly bits of technology and customer experience to optimise.
  • Partnerships of broadband/mobile operators, or MVNOs (BT, Sprint/cable co's etc) want much the same. They're also likely to have a fair shot at this, although not controlling both sides of the infrastructure will make it harder.
  • Mobile operators would potentially like to exploit their customers' broadband and WiFi at home, because it's a much cheaper way to provide coverage. You, the customer, pay for part of their radio network using your own broadband line and WiFi. It also lets them offer a VoIP service which could, in theory, further their aims of fixed-mobile substitution. However, there's a whole bunch of problems with configuration, customer support and a decent user interface/experience which means most such attempts will fail miserably.
  • Residential customers want WiFi in phones primarily for data, not voice. Browse the web or do IM from your sofa, transfer 6 megapixel images or MP3 files to/from your PC and so on. If you've got lousy cellular coverage, or are particular enthuiasts of Skype or another Internet VoIP provider then yes, you might want a VoWLAN client on the device as well - but it will have to be a top-end phone to work properly.
  • Business customers want to reduce their cellphone bills by any means possible, especially in Europe, where roaming is a huge issue. Many already have office/campus WiFi, albeit without 100% coverage or voice optimisation. Most have PBXs or IP-PBXs that they'll keep for a long time (forget IP centrex too), and many have long-distance IP networks like MPLS-based VPNs connecting their main offices. Most are also aware that employees prefer to use cellphones for many calls. Most don't want to pay for more devices than needed, but also don't want to route calls through a carrier (& pay) when it's not necessary. This is driving companies like Cisco, Avaya, NEC, Siemens, DiVitas and others to put a PBX "personality" on a WiFi-capable cellular phone. Not easy, either in terms of technology or route-to-market, but it's the first time in 15 years as an analyst I've seen more end-user "pull" ("I want this now!!!") than vendor "push" ("Hang on, it's not that easy, we're still working on it"). Most will want to work with some operators, but ideally fixed/mobile hybrid providers with teams who understand both PBXs and systems integration, not common-or-garden legacy mobile-only carriers with no entreprise network expertise.
  • VoIP service providers want to use dual-mode phones to put their software clients on devices & turn them into a "second line" using WiFi. They also face a whole bunch of challenges around integration, and may turn to hotspots in desperation, when they realise they can't control all the bits of a proper residential/corporate offering as described above.
  • Hotspot and Hotzone providers are also desperate to add voice as an application, because they've wasted 3 years' lead on HSDPA / EV-DO by sticking to stupid pricing, roaming and marketing strategies. Hotspot operators face huge problems of browser-based settings on "normal" dual-mode phones, except on pre-configured (and probably WiFi-only) devices sold specifically for that purpose. Hotzone / metro-WiFi operators will face problems of extremely patchy indoor coverage (amongst other things)
  • Handset manufacturers want to play arms merchants to all of the above, but also make sure they don't get tripped up in the "sour grapes" politics of wireless carriers who've realised they can't exploit WiFi, and who therefore don't want anyone else to play with their toys either. Especially in those countries where handsets are subsidised.
Bubley concludes that:
dual-mode is difficult. Not impossible, but nowhere near as trivial as many people make out. Some of the technology, ironically (battery life etc) is the easy bit to fix. The real problems are in user interface, integration with the fixed domain (broadband, VoIP, PBX, WiFi AP, whatever) and things like authentication/security and channel-to-market. Consequently, business models around VoWLAN will only work in those places where there's already high usage, where lots of costs can be saved - in the home, or at work. Saving 2.7 cents twice a week when calling outbound from Starbucks doesn't make a viable business for anyone. Hotspots might come later, but for now, they're not where the dual-mode action is.