"Mobile" Seems to be part of the Answer to Almost Any Set of Key Communications Questions

Hindsight, as they say, is “20/20. ” One frequently can look backwards and see how difficult it is to “predict the future” where it comes to communications on a global level.

In 2004, for example, the International Telecommunications Union still was saying that “In general, the majority of the least developed countries (LDCs) have made little progress in the past five years in closing the gap in access to basic telecommunication services. In some cases, teledensity (the number of telephone lines per 100 people) has fallen, as population growth has outstripped telecommunication growth.”



In 2011, the ITU reported that “mobile cellular penetration in the developing world reached 70 percent at the end of 2010, just six years after reaching 70 percent in the developed world.”

In 2010, mobile cellular penetration in Africa which is at 45.2 percent was higher than mobile cellular penetration in the Americas in 2004, that was 42.8 percent. Meanwhile, the ITU said, mobile penetration in the Americas had grown to 94.5 percent by 2010. Mobile penetration explodes

It would be fair to say that was a largely unexpected development. Where for many decades policymakers had worried about how to “increase tele-density” in developing regions, mobile adoption simply has answered the question in less than a decade.

In hindsight, it was not a “bad” question to ask how the world was going to provide communications to most people in the world, at prices they could afford. What arguably has not been done so well is all the money the global industry and policy establishment has, essentially, wasted in discussions about how to increase tele-density at all.

As it turns out, not only has mobile service dramatically proven it is the answer to the question, but the pressing questions now have turned elsewhere, namely to the question of how to supply Internet access, and broadband, to most people.

Nor is it immediately clear, or obvious, what the key questions are, or ought to be, in that regard. A rational person will note that “broadband access to the Internet” is likely to use mobile, not fixed facilities, in many cases, even though it seems most of the policy attention still gets focused on “what to do” to create incentives or forward motion on faster fixed facilities.

That is not to say the range of questions will be easy to address, but will we be saying, in hindsight, that our policy efforts once again represented “wasted” effort and resources?

Will we find we had spent too much time asking relevant new questions (about Internet issues) but proposing old answers?

To use but one example, the Federal Communications Commission tends to insist, in its rule-making, that “like services be treated alike.” But the virtual collapse of the business walls between cable TV and telecommunications, and the coming porosity of the line between mobile-provided services and fixed-network services, makes past distinctions between different industries an impossible matter.

In the U.S. market, different applications and services have been governed by distinct models of regulation. There is one set of rules for newspapers. There historically has been a similar set of rules, which is to say, “few to no rules” about enhanced data services.

There is a different set for “common carrier” services such as telecommunications.

There are yet different rules for radio and TV broadcasters, and a distinct set of rules for cable TV service.

All of that will be hard to maintain as the material foundation of each industry has changed. To use but one obvious example, why are “cable” companies regulated in different ways from telcos or competittive local exchange carriers, if all provide the same services?

One might argue that the “services” are regulated the same way, but the networks are not. That might seem rational to some, but not to all. The obvious corollary is what ought to be done, or what can be done, so that “like services are treated the same,” for purposes of “protecting the public” and yet “spurring growth.”

Nor, in reality, are such questions generally relevant. There are but limited moments of time when serious changes in the frameworks are conceivable. Many would say “we didn’t do enough” when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, and that could be true both for proponents of greater action to promote competition as well as those who chafe at old restrictions.

Regulation and incentives for fixed network infrastructure will continue to be difficult, if only because the revenue models that underpin all fixed networks are getting more challenging, compared to the economics of providing applications and services using wireless networks.

In the history of U.S. telecommunications, there have been but a small handful of really-foundational moments in regulation, and likewise in the history of the cable TV industry.

One wonders when the next “moment” will arrive, and whether we will ask the right questions. Even that is not so important as whether the constellation of political forces will allow movement towards a more rational and flexible framework that balances “public and national interest” with “flexibility to adapt, innovate and create high value” (both for end users, the nation and providers). 

Gary Kim is an active industry writer and analyst, editor of Mobile Marketing & Technology,  Content Marketing News and Carrier Evolution. He is a frequent contributor to IP Carrier and TMCnet, and a good friend of Razorsight. Keep up with all his industry insight -- follow him on Twitter @garykim.