A number of stories have emerged in the past few days about Apple’s discussions with Australia’s Telstra for the future launch of iPhone down-under.

One of the stories suggests that 20% of the iPhones sold so far in the US have been unlocked and moved to other carriers or exported to other markets. What does this mean for AT&T;’s reported revenue sharing with Apple? The mobile migration problem is certainly going to be a consideration for negotiations with carriers in other markets.

Another one of the reports suggests that Telstra would want Apple to introduce 3G capabilities to leverage the carrier’s ‘Next G’ network launch in 2008. iPhone currently operates at EDGE speeds in the US.

Telstra’s network also operates at a different frequency, so Apple would need to make some changes to the radio in order to launch in Australia. However, HSPA chipsets may have an impact the cost and power characteristics.

Consumers in many markets are getting used to the faster mobile internet experience enabled by 3G HSPA networks and Apple’s competitors are introducing an array of devices to deliver such capabilities.

When will Apple deliver an iPhone Turbo?

Technorati Tags:
Apple, ATT, Telstra, iPhone, HSPA

A couple weeks ago, I was speaking with Howard Thaw of Iotum. Howard works with Alec Saunders and both have sung praises about a Montreal-based mobile services company that has been saving them money on their considerable cell phone bills. On Friday, Alec wrote about how he has found ways to save considerable amounts of money when travelling to VON last week, spending only $4.16.

Mobivox seems to be attracting some attention lately, with new funding and a new COO. A couple weeks ago, Mobivox closed $11M in funding from IDG Ventures, Brightspark and Skypoint. Last week, Mobivox announced a new COO, Nitzan Shaer, formerly of IDG Ventures and former head of Skype’s mobile products group.

I have been trying out Mobivox for the past couple weeks and I think it is an interesting application.

How does Mobivox work? When you sign-up, you build an address book. The system can help by importing your Outlook, Gmail or Skype contacts. Then, you place a local call to the Mobivox access number nearest you – there are access numbers in major cities in 36 countries already. You speak to an automated attendant and just say the name of the person you want to reach.

If that person is a Mobivox or Skype user, the call is free. Well, for the cost of an outbound local call. Of course, there are lots of mobile calling plans out there that would allow customers to make their Mobivox access number one of their unlimited free destinations, such as Rogers My 5 or TELUS’ My Faves .

If the person you are trying to reach isn’t a Mobivox user, the call goes through at rates we have come to expect from VoIP. If you live in a place where there isn’t an access line, there is a call-back option – just send a text message and the system calls you.

Now, I have never been crazy about investing in arbitrage – at some point, the cellular companies will decide that they don’t really need 97% margins on their long distance calling rates and make North America part of their local calling. Say good bye to long distance arbitrage.

On the surface, Mobivox is just a sophisticated prepaid card / call-back company for mobile phones. Only worse for investors – a lot of the calling is for free. I seem to remember from the demand curves in my first year Economics course that it is easy to attract customers when the price is zero.

So how does Mobivox move onto the radar screens for venture capital? How does the business plan to make money?

Look at the marketing approach. Part social networking. Part viral. Look at the intelligent interface with voice recognition that drives enhanced features. Instant conference calling. Instant group calling. Transfer calls in progress from your mobile phone to a fixed line. Convenience features that will still be valuable to end users even when the savings aren’t as important.

All of these capabilities could be offered by the carriers, if they wanted to. That is a big “if”, because it puts LD revenues at risk, with an uncertainty that the elasticity will drive sufficient increases in total airtime to make up for the potential revenue shortfall.

That day will come. In the meantime, Mobivox is building out a global following. There are lots of places on the planet to arbitrage mobile long distance, even if carriers in any one country try to cut down the opportunity.

That is precisely what Hutchison appears to be doing with a recent announcement from 3UK, its upstart operating unit in the UK. In a deal done directly with Skype, 3UK is offering free calling and free messaging between Skype branded customers. An interesting acquisition strategy – but how do they make money?

There is an article in EETimes by Fay Arjomandi of Vancouver-based Mobidia that may shake up the fans of the 10 year old stupid network principle. The stupid network essay calls for intelligence to reside at the edge of the network, rendering IP networks to plumbing pipes – with carriers ignorant of the application and services being transported.

The Arjomandi article suggests that what is really needed is a sharing of network intelligence and joint management of network efficiency practices. The article suggests that devices should be active, intelligent network elements within the network.

Such an approach would enable end-user devices to share the responsibilities of network management for uplinks while core network nodes manage the downlinks.

This will require devices to be service-, network- and policy-aware. Such awareness will provide a much more comprehensive, efficient and wireless-friendly way to negotiate QoS with the network; enforce network policies; and queue, prioritize and manage traffic right at the source, based on its type, before sending data over precious network resources. This will eliminate the need for extra transactions over the wireless link for QoS parameter exchange. The device becomes a self-managing element within the network that manages uplink traffic.

Interesting approach. Still, I suspect there are many IP network purists who would oppose any network-based means to manage demands on network capacity.

Israel’s Communications Ministry has issued a notice that it intends to prohibit phone companies from linking minutes to handset sales, in an attempt to further open up the market in advance of the introduction of mobile number portability in December.

Israel already has among the world’s highest level of mobile phone penetration, estimated at 116% in 2006, so it is fascinating that Israel’s government felt that further intervention in market pricing was warranted.

According to the story in the Jerusalem Post, the intent is to enable more retailers and suppliers to enter the market for handsets:

In order to move new players into the market we have to make it fair. Therefore, cell phone service providers will no longer be allowed to subsidize the price of expensive handsets by offering free minutes.

An analyst suggests that the move will help independent retailers and handset manufacturers, but it is less clear how consumers benefit.

Should carriers be limited in the types of offers that they can offer consumers? What is the role of pricing regulation in the wireless market?

Technorati Tags:
Israel, mobile

Yesterday, the Competition Policy Review Panel released its consultation paper. This consultation should be of interest to the Canadian telecom industry for at least two reasons. In part, the Bell Canada connection to the members of the panel is striking. Of the five members of the panel, three are current or past directors or employees of Bell, including panel chair, former BCE CEO and Chair Lynton (Red) Wilson.

In addition, the consultation paper identifies telecom and broadcasting as two of the six specific sectors for which specific investment regulations apply. The consultation paper asks for input on these:

Canada maintains specific regimes to govern, review or restrict investment in six sectors: telecommunications, cultural industries, broadcasting, transportation services, uranium production and financial services.

1. What changes, if any, are required to Canada’s sectoral investment regimes to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on Canada’s competitiveness?
2. What have been the impacts of these investment regimes on productivity and competitiveness in the specific sectors?

Are there alternative mechanisms that would achieve the non-economic policy objectives of the sector while also ensuring maximum competitiveness of firms operating in the sector?

Inputs are due to be submitted by January 11, 2008.

Technorati Tags:
Competition Policy Review Panel, CPRP