Next week I will be on a panel at IT EXPO 2012 discussing the benefits of transitioning from TDM to SIP Trunking. I have spoken on this subject quite often and will dedicate this blog and Monday’s blog to the subject. However, in addition to understanding the benefits of SIP Trunking, it is just as important to appreciate the supposed and real weaknesses of employing SIP Trunking in your communications infrastructure.
Earlier this year I covered the SIP Survey 2012 generated by the SIP School which summarizes the opinions and experiences of more than 400 industry professionals with SIP (Session Initiation Protocol).
Focusing on the iPhone success misses a larger point. It is not simply the success of Apple or even Samsung, who actually has the larger global market share for smartphones (33% vs. 17%), that is the major business story. The more important story continues to be the migration from desktop devices and PCs to mobile devices and smartphones.
As I travel for business, I find myself offered the opportunity to access ANPI’s data network or the Internet via Wi-Fi on several airlines. Like most dedicated employees, I do work on airplanes but I have only once paid for the privilege of using an airline’s Wi-Fi service and I am not alone. According to GoGo, one of the providers of such a service, less than 10% of passengers use Wi-Fi on airplanes. Furthermore, as in my case, being able to expense the service does not improve the adoption or penetration rate.
In joining ANPI, I have been reintroduced to the concerns of the smaller independent telephone companies. Although, these companies are labeled as “incumbents”, they are relatively unknown outside of their local areas. Two things are worth noting: these ILECs or RLECs have been affected by the latest FCC reforms on funding and transit rules more than most of us are aware and these same companies must develop business plans that address the technological changes that IP communication affords them. I have addressed the funding reforms put in place by the FCC multiple times and will continue to review the impact of the new rules on our industry.
A Taxing Issue for Broadband and Channel Partners 2012
Earlier this week the FCC reversed itself and decided not to pursue taxing broadband to supplement the funding of the Universal Service Fund (USF). The USF is funded through taxes on wireline services. Since the use of wireline services is dropping due to increased use of wireless services and applications, the USF has seen its funding strained.
The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) has renamed itself the Competitive Carrier Association to create greater synergies to fight AT&T ad Verizon, the two largest wireless carriers in the US. Whereas the RCA saw its initial charter as promoting the interest of small regional wireless carriers, the market has been defined by consolidation. This changed the landscape from wireless carriers categorized as regional and geographically limited in size and scope to nationwide.
When I was with Ericsson in the early 1980s is was very important for carriers to cooperate with roaming agreements and device interoperability.
According the FCC’s Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 98% of Americans now have access to broadband that meets 4 Mbps down (into the home) and 1 Mbps up (into the Internet). This infers that 2% do not have such coverage, which represents over 5,000,000 people. Not surprisingly, the remaining 2% are scattered over a third of the country’s landmass. While the new rules covering the Universal Service Fund (USF) and InterCarrier Compensation (ICC) have need adopted by the FCC and those monies are intended to support the expansion of broadband to uncovered or underserved areas, the amount required to address the remaining 2% is prohibitive.