Us Mobile Operators_content Services

R&D N 12/2006 Tanja Storsul and Pål Sørgaard

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

R&D Research Note Title

N 12/2006 US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Author(s) ISSN Security group Date

Tanja Storsul and Pål Sørgaard 0809-1021 OPEN 2006.07.14

Abstract In the United States the content and media industries are strong. The mobile market is characterised by different 2G and 3G-technologies and by many mobile operators, four of which operate on a national level. The calling plans typically have special add-ons for messaging (e.g., SMS), data traffic and content. Practically all mobile phones are branded by the operator. Reuse of 2G and 3G phones on other networks is not easy, and will generally only work for basic voice services. The mobile operators emphasize their content offerings, especially their video content, in their marketing. Technical solutions and conditions for use ensure that the content is available only on the operators’ designated terminals, indicating heavy emphasis on a walled garden approach. A closer look at the information about the video content available reveals, however, that only a small fraction of the content is exclusively available on only one operator’s network. Many of the channels provided are delivered by a mobile video content aggregator. In summary, the operators have chosen a business model similar to the model of cable TV. There are different pricing arrangements for mobile content. We have no data about use and revenues, but it is our impression that the industry is experimenting with new ways to distribute content. Branded terminals, service conditions and calling plans all result in higher switching costs for the customers. Most likely, the service conditions also result in lower volume of mobile content. For the mobile operators, this may be a very high price to pay for increased switching costs.

Keywords Mobile content, walled garden, exclusivity, switching costs, United States

Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Preface This research note is based on data collected during a common study tour to the United States in March and April 2006. We were visitors at the Annenberg Center for Communication at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and we are very grateful for the hospitality shown to us at Annenberg. The material presented in this note is mainly aimed at describing the situation in the US market. It is a first insight into how US mobile operators approach the emerging mobile content market. As this note shows, there are many uncertainties in these market developments. We hope that this note may provide some fruitful perspectives for further research as well as discussions on how to approach mobile content markets. Oslo, July 2006 Tanja Storsul, Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo Pål Sørgaard, Telenor R&D

Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Contents 1

Introduction.......................................................... 1

2

The main operators in the US market.................... 2

2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

3

3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7

4

General trends ........................................................................ 2 The four nationwide operators ................................................... 3 Cingular Wireless..................................................................... 3 Verizon Wireless ...................................................................... 3 Sprint Nextel Corporation ......................................................... 4 T-Mobile ................................................................................. 4

Calling plans, services and terms .......................... 5

Calling plans and terms ............................................................ 5 Services ................................................................................. 6 Basic content services .............................................................. 6 Advanced content services ........................................................ 7 T-Mobile ................................................................................. 7 Cingular ................................................................................. 7 Verizon .................................................................................. 9 Sprint (Nextel specific services not included) ............................. 10 MobiTV................................................................................. 11

Openness, Walled Gardens or Exclusivity? .......... 13

4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Little openness ...................................................................... 13 Limited exclusivity ................................................................. 14 Exclusive phones ................................................................... 14 Exclusive content? ................................................................. 15 Walled gardens ..................................................................... 17 The dominance of the cable TV model....................................... 18 Why the cable TV model?........................................................ 19

5

Conclusions......................................................... 21

References .................................................................. 22 Appendix: table of video content available ................. 23

Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

1 Introduction This research note aims at describing the main mobile operators in the United States with special emphasis on their offerings of content services. Expectations are high that the mobile content markets will increase rapidly and that mobile content services will be a killer application for 3rd generation mobile telephony (3G). At the same time, both mobile operators and content providers are searching for viable business models for mobile content services. Among the key issues in mobile markets is how content services should be provided in order to generate income. In the Norwegian market, CPA has been established as a model for service provision that enables the customer to use and pay for content services across platforms (3). In other markets, operators are developing quite different models. We have investigated how US mobile operators have approached mobile content services. The US mobile market is highly competitive. It has several mobile operators, and competition between different technologies for mobile service provision. Further, the content industry in the US is highly developed and delivers content all over the world. The business models that emerge in the US may therefore turn out to be of relevance for other markets. These characteristics of the US market make it very interesting to study how mobile operators approach content. We have focussed on basic characteristics in how US mobile operators provide content: •

What content is provided – and how?

•

How and for what do customers pay?

•

Is content provided openly and to all customers regardless of mobile operator, or are there measures of exclusivity and walled gardens?

We have investigated the content services provided by the mobile operators looking at text based information services, and audio and video services. In one, more focussed investigation we have focussed particularly on video services, as these are the most advanced services and in the provision of these services we would expect the mobile operators’ strategies to be the most explicit. As a research note, this document mainly serves to document concrete findings and to provide a first insight into the US market. The note is mainly based on material available from the web and from the sales outlets of the mobile operators as of April 2006.1 There are many mobile operators in the US, most of which are regional (1). For practical reasons the study focuses on the operators with a national footprint. We have not recorded user experiences and we do not have economical data that could inform us about the success or failure of mobile content services.

1 The links are generally in footnotes. These were valid at the time of writing (April-July 2006), but we cannot guarantee their validity in the future.

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 1

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

2 The main operators in the US market Compared to Norway, the US mobile market is very heterogeneous in terms of technology and coverage. There are four nationwide operators (five if we count Sprint and Nextel separately, see (1)) and several regional operators. There are also several resellers (Mobile Virtual Network Operators, MVNOs). Some large companies like Time-Warner, Disney, Wal-Mart, and 7-Eleven plan to launch their own MVNOs (1, paragraph 28). In the following we will give brief accounts of the four nationwide operators. These accounts are based on information on the web pages of the respective companies, on material from the Federal Communications Commission (1) and on several articles in Wikipedia.2 Wikipedia has excellent coverage of the industry, with up-to-date and sometimes contested articles about the mobile operators.

2.1 General trends In recent years there has been considerable consolidation in the US mobile industry. Independent regional operators have joined forces, the baby Bells have bought many of these companies, other investors have bought others, and finally there have been large mergers between the operators. As a result there were four nationwide operators in 2006 as opposed to six only two years earlier. Increasingly, the traditional telecom industry has gained control over the mobile industry, and the former giant AT& is rising again. Consolidation is the logical answer to tough competition between providers of practically identical services. Another answer is differentiation, i.e. the introduction of services, service properties or commercial conditions that tend to differentiate the operators from one another. A lot of the discussion in this research note should be seen in this light. The mobile industry in the US in 2006 was more heterogeneous technologically than in most European countries. There were four different 2nd generation technologies (GSM, CDMA, TDMS, iDEN) and two different 3rd generation technologies (UMTS, CDMA 1xRTT/EV-DO), while 1st generation (analogue) technology (AMPS) was till in use. There were different kinds of messaging services, and for a long time, it was not possible to exchange text messages between operators. Interchange of text messages has, however, been possible since 2003 (ca). As a result, the use of text messages was in strong growth. While adoption rates of mobile phones still were somewhat lower then in most saturated markets, the US market was highly competitive with its four national operators and additional regional and virtual operators. Wireless Local Number Portability has been in effect since late 2003, and some believe that was one of the reasons AT&T wireless was weakened so much that it sought to be bought by a larger company (the winning bid coming from Cingular).3 This may be consistent with the relatively low growth rate of Cingular Wireless (see Table 1 below).

2 3

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_phone_companies The fall of AT&T wireless; http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/191742_attw21.html

2 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

2.2 The four nationwide operators As of April 2006, there were four national mobile telephone operators in the United States: Cingular Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile. All of these are results of major mergers or acquisitions during the previous decade. Table 1

Nationwide operators in the United States as of April 2006.

Operator Cingular8 Verizon10 Sprint13 Nextel T-Mobile15

Customers4 49 109 43 816 21 507 16 247 17 314

Recent figures5 54 0009 51 30011

Growth6 9,96% 17,08%

47 60014

26,08%

21 69016

25,27%

Technology7 GSM, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, TDMA CDMA, 1xRTT, EV-DO12 CDMA, 1xRTT, EV-DO iDEN GSM, GPRS, EDGE

2.2.1 Cingular Wireless In 2006, Cingular Wireless was the largest mobile operator in the United States. It was formed in 2001 as a joint venture of SBC Communications and Bellsouth based on 11 regional companies. In 2004 Cingular Wireless merged with AT&T Wireless after a bidding war with Vodafone. SBC Communications was owned by AT&T, but in 2005 SBC Communications bought its mother company AT&T and changed its name to AT&T. In March 2006 SBC (AT&T) announced its plans to acquire Bellsouth. Thus Cingular Wireless became the mobile arm of AT&T. The original Cingular Wireless was a pure GSM (and GPRS, UMTS, etc.) operator while AT&T wireless ran a TDMA-network. Like all US operators Cingular still provided an analogue network based on AMPS. In 2006, Cingular announced plans to close the TDMA and AMPS networks. The new AT&T emerged as a full range provider of telecom services, i.e. local and long distance (fixed) telephony, mobile telephony, Internet access over ADSL, and satellite television.

2.2.2 Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone and emerged as the result of a merger in 2000 of Vodafone Airtouch, Bell Atlantic Mobile and GTE’s wireless operation. Verizon Wireless was the largest mobile operator until Cingular acquired AT&T wireless in 2004.

4

Numbers are in thousands as of year-end 2004. Source (1). As obtainable in April 2006. 6 Estimates of annual growth in 2005. Based on recent unofficial figures (column to the left). 7 In addition, all operators must provide AMPS until 2008. 8 http://www.cingular.com 9 http://www.cingular.com/about/company_overview 10 http://www.verizonwireless.com 11 http://aboutus.vzw.com/aboutusoverview.html 12 http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/aboutUs/wirelessNetwork.jsp 13 http://www.sprint.com 14 Sprint and Nextel: http://www.sprint.com/investors/annualreports/pdf/2005/Sprint05arAllPages.pdf 15 http://www.t-mobile.com 16 http://www.tmobile.com/Cms/Files/Published/0000BDF20016F5DD010312E2BDE4AE9B/0000BDF20016F5DF010 980E317DFA319/file/2005_Q4.pdf 5

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 3

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Verizon Communications was formed when Bell Atlantic bought GTE (the largest independent, non regional Bell operator) in 2000. Verizon Communications had previously bought NYNEX (regional Bell for New England and New York). In 2006, Verizon wireless operated a CDMA network with 3G (1xRTT and EV-DO technologies). Verizon Wireless also operated an AMPS network. Besides mobile telephony, Verizon Communications provided local and long distance telephony, Internet access over ADSL, Voice over IP, video over optical fibre (the FiOS service) and also Internet over fibre (FTTP, fibre to the premises, called FiOS Internet).

2.2.3 Sprint Nextel Corporation Sprint Nextel is the result of the 2005 merger of Sprint and Nextel. Sprint had its roots as an early independent telephone operator (Brown Telephone Company, later United Telecommunications) and as the telecom operator of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Sprint PCS (Personal Communication System) operated a CDMA network with 3G services on the 1xRTT technology. In 2006 Sprint invested heavily in EV-DO, already reaching more that half the US population with EV-DO. Nextel was founded in 1987 as FleetCall and renamed to NEXTEL Communications in 1993. In 2006 Nextel operated iDEN, a proprietary 2G technology based on TDMA provided by Motorola. After the merger, Sprint and Nextel services were still provided separately as their technologies differed. Sprint Nextel were, however, developing similar calling plans for services across technological platforms. Sprint Nextel was also a provider of local and long distance telephony, and of Internet backbone (Tier 1 Internet service provider under the name SprintLink). In 2006 Sprint Nextel announced a partnership with several cable television providers whereby TV customers can bundle their Sprint or Nextel cell phones with their cable bills.

2.2.4 T-Mobile T-Mobile in the US emerged as the result of Deutsche Telekom’s acquisition of VoiceStream Wireless and Powertel. In 2006 T-Mobile operated a GSM network with GPRS and EDGE, but without any 3G. T-Mobile HotSpot was the country’s largest provider of WiFi hot spots with 7682 sites all over US, e.g. in Starbucks, selected stores, some hotels, airports and airline clubs. T-Mobile has announced that it will introduce UMA (Unlicensed Mobile Access) in 2006. UMA allows for “GSM over WiFi”, thus filling coverage gaps and possibly (authors’ speculation) allowing for lower traffic charges.

4 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

3 Calling plans, services and terms This chapter gives and overview of the calling plans, services, and especially content services of the four main operators. The overview is based on the operators’ brochures and web-information of early April 2006.

3.1 Calling plans and terms The calling plans of these four operators followed essentially the same pattern.17 They were individual plans (for a one-line customer), family plans (for two or more lines), and the option of using prepaid (pay-as-you-go). The subscription plans typically required at least a one-year subscription agreement (two years for some Sprint plans). The subscriptions were sold with proprietary phones offered exclusively by the network providers (more about this in chapter 4). Typically, a calling plan would include: •

Monthly access charge

•

Minutes included in the monthly subscription (named whenever/anytime/airtime minutes)

•

Night and weekend minutes – unlimited or a basic number included.

•

Cost per additional minute.

•

In-network minutes are unlimited with the examined Cingular and Verizon plans. This may be added to the Sprint and T-mobile plans for an extra charge.

On top of this, the customer could add a number of services such as: •

Bundles of text messages, e-mail and/or multimedia messages

•

Broadband access/MB downloads

•

Access to content services

Use of content services was charged through the telephone bill. How the charges were calculated varied between mobile operators, calling plans, addons etc. Charging for mobile content services could be in the form of: •

Fixed add-ons to the monthly subscription charge.

•

Airtime charges. The customer might be charged for the airtime while using content services.

•

Volume charges: Customers would in many plans be charged for the volume of incoming and outgoing data (number of kB).

•

Pay per clip: Content, such as videos and music, was often charged per clip or unit (typically video clip or song). This would normally include volume

17 Sprint brochure 2006 Sprint Choices, Service Plans and Rates, (NV5001-1400 49555604), Cingular Brochure 2006 Cingular Nation GSM Plans Allover Network (NCP BR T 0206 0232 E 78802), Cingular Brochure 2006 Cingular Nation GSM Plans Allover Network (NCP BR T 0206 0232 E 78802), http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=planFirst&action=viewPlanDetail&sortO ption=priceSort&catId=323&cm_re=Home%20Page-_-Personal%20Box-_-Individual%20Plans

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 5

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

and airtime, but the rates accessible online were often not transparent on how this would work. It is important to note that the subscriber usually not only paid minutes for calling or sending messages, but also for receiving calls, messages and other forms of data. The caller and the recipient of a call, the sender and the receiver of a message were both charged. They seemed to be equally charged. As stated by Verizon about charging text messages: “TXT Messaging is a two-way text messaging service. Send and receive text messages of up to 160 characters right on your two-way messagingcapable phone. $0.10 for messages received and $0.10 for messages sent.”18 T-mobile described that: “You are charged for all calls processed through your phone, including airtime for toll-free calls and for voicemail receipt and retrieval. Your phone can process more than one call at a time, Certain calls or features involve multiple calls, and you will be charged separately for each; these include forwarded calls (in to your phone and out to a forwarded number), call waiting, and hold, conference calls and unanswered incoming calls forwarded to voicemail. ... Except with respect to callers and recipients on rate plans that include unlimited mobile-to-mobile calls, the caller and recipient each will be charged (...) on a mobile-to-mobile call. .... You will be charged for all data sent by or to you through the network, whether received or not.”19 Similarly, Cingular stated that: “Use of Services will be charged as specified in your plan. Text, Instant, and Multimedia messages are charged when sent or received, whether read or unread, solicited or unsolicited. Cingular does not guarantee delivery of messages.”20 Sprint offered free incoming plans. These were more expensive to subscribe to than the regular plans. The cost of extra additional minutes was quadrupled in these plans.

3.2 Services The services these companies provided were quite similar. They all provided voice telephony, voice mail, caller ID and other basic services related to voice telephony. They offered text and picture messages, data services, e-mail,21 Internet access for computers22 – and content services, which are in focus here.

3.2.1 Basic content services These basic content services were downloaded onto the mobile phone using a navigation interface. They were typically meant for personalising the phones. 18

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/featurePopup?item=planFirst&featureType=incl&featur eId=1847 19 Brochure: T-mobile 2006: Rates, Services & Coverage (T1031.4.LOS.4x9) 20 https://www.cingular.com/media/terms/#section1 21 E-mail is typically billed by the volume of data sent and received. 22 Internet access for computers is a service all operators provide. We have not investigated this service particularly other than noting that efforts are made to separate this service from mobile web and content services. This is discussed in the illustration in the last part of chapter 3.

6 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Compared to the Norwegian setting, these would be the content services that had been around for a long time, firstly by SMS, later also available through WAP. These services included: •

Ring tones and caller tones (tunes the caller can listen to while waiting for an answer, also called answer tones and ringback tones).

•

Graphics, styles and background pictures for the phones.

•

Games to download.

3.2.2 Advanced content services More advanced content services had been available for a short time only. These included: •

Music, video and game downloads. These were similar to the ring tones and images in the sense that they were typically downloaded and paid for per piece, but they differed in quality and length. A ring tone typically would be 10 seconds, for the more advanced services you could download the whole song.

•

Audio and video streaming. This was for watching video or listening to audio clips – or even real-time radio or television.

•

Information services. These were text-based information services with news, weather reports, sports news, info from the stock exchange etc and seemed to resemble regular WAP portals with information services. They were, however, often advertised as web-services. On CDMA, these services were called mobile web 2.0.23

Both the basic and the advanced content services actualized the relationship between network provision and content. In the following, we shall see how the major four operators had approached this differently. We shall mainly focus on the advanced services.

3.2.3 T-Mobile T-Mobile provided basic content services like caller tones, ring tones, background pictures and games. These were downloadable from what they called T-zones, which the customer could access via their mobile phone or on the web. T-zones were free to browse, but the customer was charged for all data sent by or to the customer, whether received or not.24 T-Mobile’s services were for T-Mobile customers only and would be charged to the customers’ phone bills. We did not investigate T-Mobile’s services more closely since they did not provide more advanced services.

3.2.4 Cingular Cingular provided both basic and more advanced services. They described the following services: Text Messaging, Instant Messaging, Multimedia Messaging, MEdia Net, Ring tones, Info Alerts, Graphics, Games and Mobile Email.

23 Not to be confused with the popular notion of Web 2.0 referring to new advanced uses of WWW like flickr, del.icio.us, etc. 24 Brochure: T-mobile 2006: Rates, Services & Coverage (T1031.4.LOS.4x9)

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 7

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Downloads Cingular’s downloads of answer tones, games, ringtones etc were offered by independent providers. Downloads required an add-on subscription to Media Net and usage would be charged according to the customer’s Media Net plan25 “Ringtone, graphic, game, and Cool Tool charges are incurred at the stated one-time download rate or subscription rate, plus a kilobyte charge for the content transport when delivered.”26 Typically answer tones were described as a service that personalises what your caller hears. Answer tones were priced at $1.99 each and expires in 365 days. In addition there was a monthly service subscription of $0.99 regardless of the number of answer tones ordered. These charges were in addition to the monthly service fee. Similarly, ‘Cingular Sounds Tone Club’ provided bundles of downloads of three packs or six packs of music tones: “Your direct bill will be charged every 30 days and, at the same time, credits will be added to your account which can be used to buy ringtones and graphics through Media Mall.”27 Streaming Cingular provided streaming of voice and video when offering channels from MobiTV28 and MobiRadio. Subscribers could access MobiTV with over 25 channels of TV for $9.99 a month.29 The brochure stated that “Media Net service required and usage is charged, based on your plan. Cingular recommends an unlimited Media Net plan.”30 MobiTV is not a wireless company but a provider of services to several network operators.31 MobiRadio are radio channels provided by the same company. Information services Media net provided News, weather, sports, movies and more on a text-based service.32 The portal looked like a WAP service but was not referred to WAP. It was further clearly distinguished from computer-based Internet access: MEdia Net is not equivalent to landline Internet. Only select sites accessible through a mobile connection are available. You are restricted from using a home page other than the Cingular home page. MEdia Net is billed by total volume data sent and received (in kilobytes). .... Cingular provides connectivity for access to MEdia Net. Information is provided by unaffiliated content providers and is subject to change at any time without notice.

25 Cingular Brochure 2006 Cingular Nation GSM Plans Allover Network (NCP BR T 0206 0232 E 78802) 26 https://www.cingular.com/media/terms/#section1 27 Cingular Brochure 2006 Cingular Nation GSM Plans Allover Network (NCP BR T 0206 0232 E 78802) 28 http://www.mobitv.com/ 29 Cingular Brochure 2006 Mobitv/mobiradio (DAT TO T 0106 0445 E) 30 Cingular Brochure 2006 Mobitv/mobiradio (DAT TO T 0106 0445 E) 31 http://www.mobitv.com/ 32 Cingular Brochure 2005) Cingular Media Net: With Media Net (DAT TO T 1105 0413 E)

8 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

3.2.5 Verizon Verizon provided basic downloadable content services over its “Get it Now” platform, and more advanced services over its V CAST platforms: Downloads Get it Now provided downloadable applications (games, exclusive content, ring tones, ringback tones and more) using BREW (binary runtime environment for wireless) technology. The BREW technology was proprietary, and differed from the technology used by SPRINT, although SPRINT also used CDMA technology. V Cast Music was a download-service for music directly to mobile phones. This required what they called broadband access which meant 3G network based on CDMA EV-DO. The procedure for downloading songs was as follows. The customer would find the tune she wanted searching the V CAST library with her phone. She would then select the song wanted, confirm the choice and that she (in this example) would pay $1.99 for the song in order to download it immediately or later. The song would also be downloadable to one PC.33 - and streaming V CAST – based on CDMA EV-DO – provided both streaming and downloads of high quality video, 3D games and music. This was available in areas where broadband access was offered. V Cast was “Subject to customer agreement, calling plan, and Get it Now agreements. Plus, additional $15/month V CAST subscription required for V CAST service.”34 In order to use V CAST a customer had to “add the V CAST VPak to your calling plan. VPAK includes wireless access to the V CAST Music store, Unlimited airtime for data services, Unlimited Basic Video Clips, Unlimited Mobile Web 2.0. $15/month after first month.”35 The video services provided seemed to be many basic channels such as clips from CNN, ABC News, NBC, CBS, The Weather Channel, MTV, Looney Tunes, ESPN, Fox Sports etc.36 Watching these clips did not incur airtime charges, but they were charged individually. The pricing of the clip would be displayed in the process before downloading it.37 Information services Verizon’s information service very much resembled a WAP portal, but was referred to as Mobile Web 2.0SM. The service provided access to text based services of CNN, Fox Sports etc. To use the service, the customers had to activate it through a process in which they accepted the terms of subscription: Subject to Customer Agreement, Calling Plan, Get It Now Agreements. Get It Now capable phone required. All airtime used applies towards your

33 34 35 36 37

http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=vcast_music_how2phone http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=vcast http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=vcast_music_how2start http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=video_browse http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=video_how

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 9

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Calling Plan's monthly airtime allowance, and usage above allowances will be charged at the rate set forth in your Calling Plan.38 Charges for premium content services are in addition to any network usage costs (whether charged by airtime minutes billed individually or subtracted from a minute allowance, or by kilobytes billed individually or subtracted from a kilobyte allowance).39 Observation: Test of Verizon’s advanced content services In order to check to what degree the US content services resembled the services provided in Norway, we carried out a small test of the advanced services provided by Verizon. The test was done in a Verizon-store in Santa Monica, LA, in which the displayed phones were online and available for testing out services. We tried two phones, which both were compatible with advanced services and the 3G network. We first tried the information services provided. These were typically sports and news and seemed very much like the WAP services in Norway. The information services were available without extra cost (except for traffic charges as described above). What surprised us with this service was the slow speed. Using information services was much slower than what we were used to with 3G and WAP in Norway. We do not have an explanation for this. It could be that the information services were provided on 2G only; it could be the CDMA network, the servers, the phones, the user interface, or something else. We then tried the video services. From Verizon’s V CAST platform, we could access some sports and news video clips. The number of content providers accessible seemed lower than advertised on Verizon’s website, but it might be that the shop had reduced the number of content providers available on the display phones to avoid too much free traffic in the store. (As described above, Verizon charged per clip, and did not charge the traffic to transfer the clip. Thus, the shop may have provided some clips for free that otherwise would be charged per clip.) Nevertheless, what surprised us with this service was the high quality. The pictures were very clear, the sound good, and after a short buffering time, the video was fluent without the glitches that can be experienced on Norwegian mobile TV. Thus, Verizon’s advanced content services were quite similar to the Norwegian mobile content services. In our test, the differences seemed to be minor and related to technological features like speed and quality of service, not the kind of services. The other mobile operators described similar services. Whether the speed and quality were be the same with other US providers, we cannot conclude.

3.2.6 Sprint (Nextel specific services not included) Sprint provided the same kinds of services as the other operators – from messaging, through ring tones, to more advanced audio, video and games.

38 39

http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/index.aspx?id=news_web_learn http://getitnow.vzwshop.com/popups/footerTermsWeb.aspx

10 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Downloads The Sprint Power Vision Service (Sprint PSP) was promoted as an exclusive service only from Sprint and included both downloads and streaming of audio, video and game services.40 The Sprint Music Store offered wireless download of digital tracks – “hundreds of thousands of full-length songs from virtually every genre”. The songs could be downloaded directly from the phone – and even to the PC. Streaming Sprint also offered the streaming of music through Sirius Hits 1 (a satellite radio station) and by letting the customers “choose from their many individual premium commercial-free stations.” Apparently, this was a kind of real-time radio streaming. The provision of satellite radio content over the mobile network also raised a discussion of censorship.41 The customer could also get exclusive video clips, performances and interviews, watch Sprint TV or clips from other TV providers. MobiTV claimed that they delivered services to Sprint. We could not find any explicit mentioning of this on the Sprint website. However, the provision of video content did fit well with an assumption that MobiTV was the main provider of video content to Sprint (see chapter 4). Information services Sprint also provided information services as a WAP-like information portal – and also an on demand service from which the customers could get “customized, up-to-date information such as news, sports, weather, money and movies, on demand the way you want it”. All these content services were offered in bundles (Sprint Power Vision Pack) and charged monthly. Some content was priced separately. “Unless a Sprint Power Vision Pack is selected, customers with a Power Vision phone will be charged 2c per kilobyte for Sprint Power Vision usage.” “Usage is calculated on a per kilobyte basis and is rounded up to the next whole kilobyte.” “You are responsible for all data activity from and to your phone, regardless of who initiates the activity. Estimates of data usage will vary from actual use. In certain instances, we may delete content/items downloaded to available storage areas, including any pictures, games, ringers or screen savers.” “Premium content (games, ringers, etc) priced separately.”

3.2.7 MobiTV Above, the four main mobile operators have been briefly described. Three of these (Cingular, Verizon and Sprint) provided mobile audiovisual content (video). As will be described in the next chapter, the video content they 40 Sprint brochure 2006 Introducing Power Vision only from Sprint (AU5000-1301 SPEVDOBRO_11/05 41 See http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/sirius-/-sprint-debuts.html and http://getsiriusinfo.blogspot.com/2005/09/sprint-pcs-phone-now-with-sirius.html

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 11

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

provided was basically mobile services from the main television providers, such as Fox, ESPN, CNN, Cartoon Network etc. How the deals were made between the television providers and the mobile service providers was not transparent in our data material and should be investigated further. However, there was a third kind of actor involved which could be called a mobile content aggregator. Cingular stated (as described above) that they received their video services from MobiTV, and MobiTV confirmed this on their website and stated that they also delivered services to Sprint. MobiTV was also available on some regional networks in the US, and on Networks like Orange and 3 in the UK, Bell in Canada as well as on other networks and in other countries. MobiTV had two services; the MobiTV Service that included a long list of both live and made-for-mobile television channels, and MobiRadio Service, delivering more than 40 commercial-free digital music channels. MobiTV was founded in 1999 and is a privately held company, headquartered in California. MobiTV calls itself a global leader in television and digital radio services for mobile devices. On March 14, 2006 it was announced that the company had been chosen by OnHollywood as one of the Top 100 Private Company Award winners.

12 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

4 Openness, Walled Gardens or Exclusivity? To what degree can we find similarities between the provision of mobile content services and business models in other more mature media markets? The US media industries have been successful, not only in the US, but also globally. We may therefore expect that experience from other media markets were taken into account when the operators developed models for mobile content provision. When examining the operators’ content service provision and the terms and conditions for subscribers, we therefore compared the emerging business models for mobile content services with more established business models. The business models within the media industries do, however, vary between media markets. Three different models may serve as analytical examples. 1. The open model: This is the model typical for the Internet. Content is accessible regardless of network provider. It makes no difference for the accessibility of content services which network the user subscribes to. Terms and conditions may differ between network providers, but anyone connected to an IP network may access the websites of Fox, NRK, Disney, etc – and if the bandwidth is sufficient, she or he may stream video. Typically, network access is paid to the network provider, and pay content services are paid to the content service provider – not through the network subscription. 2. The walled garden model: This is the typical model for cable TV. In the cable TV market, customers can watch the channels provided by their cable company only. The cable companies negotiate deals with television companies and pay for the right to transmit certain channels and programs. The customers subscribe to packages of channels, individual channels, or pay for individual programmes. The customers are charged by the cable company, not the content provider. 3. The exclusivity model: This is a model found in the US film industry. The US film production companies own their own chains of cinemas which screen their own production. The films are also provided to independent cinemas, also, but when possible, the film production companies distribute their films through their own cinemas making it possible to channel income from box office revenue back into film production. There may also be features of exclusivity in cable TV and in satellite TV. A cable or satellite company may negotiate an exclusive deal with a content provider or right holder.42 Typically, however, the TV channels negotiate non-exclusive deals with the cable and satellite companies. Which of these models could describe the US market for mobile content services?

4.1 Little openness The US mobile content market did not resemble the open model. The content services were provided and paid through the mobile subscription. There were no indications that services could be provided directly from the content provider to the subscriber. We found no evidence of payment arrangements other than those connected to the mobile subscription. Further, although there was 42 A Norwegian example of this would be the exclusive deal between Canal Digital and TV2 in the Norwegian satellite market.

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 13

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

massive advertising for mobile services, including content services, all the advertising was done by the mobile operators. We found no advertisements from content service providers.43 Another illustration of the closed environments for mobile content was how Sprint explicitly separated Internet access for computers-services from the mobile content services. In fact, phones could not be used for these services unless the customer has subscribed to a specific plan for this: “Except with phone-as-modem plans, you may not use a phone (including a Bluetooth phone), provisioned with a plan that includes unlimited Vision/Power Vision, as a modem in connection with a computer, PDA, or similar device.”44 Similarly, Cingular stated that: “MEdia Net packages are not available on PDAs, RIM devices, or Laptop Modem Cards. MEdia Net packages are not intended for tethering.”45 One may of course speculate about the motivation for these conditions, but the effect is clear. There is a technical barrier between mobile content accessible on the phones and content available from the Internet. Where the barrier is incomplete; there are conditions that prohibit mixing the two worlds. Thus, if it is technically possible at all to transfer content from these services to a PC or to any other device with an ordinary Internet connection, such use is prohibited. Moreover, the mobile phones cannot be used to access ordinary free content on the Internet.

4.2 Limited exclusivity But, how closed was this mobile content market? Was it based on walled gardens or also on exclusivity? In the advertisements, the mobile operators promoted their offers as exclusive. On a closer look, however, it became clear that what were exclusive were their phones and subscriptions. The content services were mainly non-exclusive.

4.2.1 Exclusive phones In the retail shops for mobile phones and subscriptions, the phones were advertised as exclusive offers by the mobile operators, and the phones were branded with the mobile operator’s logo. The bundling of subscriptions and the proprietary phones was very strong. Obviously, GSM and CDMA subscribers would need different phones. Even within the same network standard, however, the phones were specific to the network company. As we read the regulations in the US, there is no requirement that there should be handset compatibility within the digital (or PCS) networks, but that there is such a requirement for the analogue (or cellular) networked based on AMPS.46 This was the basic picture. Telephones were proprietary and locked to one mobile operator. Sprint explicitly stated that it would only accept Sprint 43

This is in stark contrast to Norway, where the service providers actively develop and promote their services, with high visibility in terms of advertising. 44 Sprint brochure 2006 Sprint Choices, Service Plans and Rates, (NV5001-1400 49555604) 45 RIM (Research in Motion) is the provider of the highly successful BlackBerry wireless e-mail solution. 46 See http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=broadband_pcs and http://www.wirelessadvisor.com/analog-cellular.cfm

14 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

phones: “Our services will only work with our phones.”47 The other operators did not explicitly refuse other phones, but underlined that services might not work with phones not purchased through the operator. The terms and conditions from T-Mobile and Verizon read: T-Mobile: Use of Phone with Other Providers/Phone Purchases. Wireless devices and networks do not all use the same technologies. Your Phone may not be compatible with the network and services provided by another wireless service provider and, therefore, may not work with that provider's wireless service. You may buy a Phone from us, or from someone else, but it must be GSM/GPRS equipment that is compatible and approved for use with our network and Services and we do not guarantee that all T-Mobile features will be available with such equipment. A T-Mobile Phone may be programmed to accept only a T-Mobile SIM card.48 Verizon: Your wireless phone is any device you use to receive our wireless voice or data service. It must comply with Federal Communications Commission regulations and be compatible with our network and your calling plan. Whether you buy your wireless phone from us or someone else is entirely your choice. At times we may change your wireless phone's software, applications or programming remotely and without notice. This could affect data you've stored on, the way you've programmed, or the way you use, your wireless phone. Your wireless phone may also contain software that prevents it from being used with any other company's wireless service, even if it's no longer used to receive our service.49 Thus, the terminals were basically sold as integral parts of the mobile operators’ chain stores and the effective terminal control makes switching costs very high. It also enabled the operators to preinstall features and applications etc. According to a salesperson at a T-mobile store, neutral phones were supposed to exist, but these were impossible to find. Furthermore, as underlined in the quotes from the terms and conditions above, such phones would not work with some of the services provided, probably because of preinstalled software. The issue with phones that are locked to a specific operator is, of course, controversial.50

4.2.2 Exclusive content? The mobile operators also branded some of their content services as exclusive. This was, however, mainly their own packaging of content services. They all had mobile portals or environments for presenting their advanced content services. Cingular’s portal service was called Media Net, Verizon’s service was called V CAST and Sprint’s service was called PowerVision. These portals (or content environments) were available to the operators’ own customers exclusively. The content services available through these portals, the video, audio and textbased services, were mainly provided by third parties, typically established 47

Sprint brochure 2006 Sprint Choices, Service Plans and Rates, (NV5001-1400 49555604) http://www.tmobile.com/Templates/Popup.aspx?PAsset=Ftr_Ftr_TermsAndConditions&print=true 49 http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/globalText?textName=CUSTOMER_AGREEMENT&jspName=f ooter/customerAgreement.jsp 50 See http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/handset%20locking%20letter%20FCC%20%20mar%2011%2004.pdf 48

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 15

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

media providers. These content services were mainly non-exclusive. To a large degree, the content one operator provided was also provided by competing operators. In order to investigate this general impression more systematically, we made a study of the operators’ video services. This focus on video services was grounded in an assumption that possible exclusivity would be detectable in this market as video services are the most advanced and has been regarded as a driver in the mobile 3G market. Regarding exclusive video content, we had two alternative hypotheses as to what we might find. •

Hypothesis A: Video content is exclusive; If this was the case, we would expect to find major differences in the content available from (through) different operators.

•

Hypothesis B: Video content is non-exclusive; If this was true, we would expect major overlaps between the content from (through) different operators.

In order to test these hypotheses we made a large table (see the appendix) of the video content available from the different operators. T-Mobile does not have any 3G network (yet), and does not provide any video content. Hence T-Mobile is not in the table. In addition to the three remaining operators, we have also gone through the content provided by MobiTV (see above), as content from MobiTV is offered to many operators, and hence not exclusively for any operator. The table is based on the information on the World Wide Web provided by the operators and by the press. This information may be incomplete, uncertain and subject to change. As an example, MobiTV informed about a series of channels it provided to Cingular and Sprint (these lists are identical in the information provided by MobiTV), but we did not find information about all these channels on the web pages of the respective operators. This indicates that the operators do not publish a complete overview of their mobile content services on the web. For the channels provided by only one operator (hence the potentially exclusive channels), we have tried to establish whether these had exclusivity arrangements with one operator, or if they simply happened to be provided by only one of these three operators. This proved difficult, as far from all channels used their web pages to inform about their availability on mobile telephones. With the exception of brand specific channels (such as the V CAST channels from Verizon, and SprintTV from Sprint), we have only been able to determine that HBO (Cingular), NFL (Sprint), and The OC (Verizon) are exclusively available via one operator. Regarding Nickelodeon we found contradictory reports. With all reservations due to the incompleteness of information and sources of error in this analysis, there is still a clear pattern in the data. Sprint and Cingular clearly had a mobile video offering that was mainly, but not only, provided through MobiTV. Verizon had a much higher number of channels on its list than the two other operators had. With the exception of “The OC” (and possibly Nickelodeon), we have no indications that Verizon had exclusivity agreements with these channels. They may have had such agreements, but this was not marketed or stated. We may therefore assume that other mobile operators could negotiate agreements with the same channels if they wanted to. What the Verizon case nevertheless indicates is that Verizon made a stronger effort to brand itself as a provider of a range of mobile video content,

16 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

and that it wanted to be different from its competitors, not basing its services on MobiTV. The data we have collected do not clearly support either of our hypotheses. There is a mixed picture: Most content seemed to be non-exclusive, and there was considerable overlap of content. Still, there were examples of video content provided with exclusivity arrangements. We should also add to this that the existence of MobiTV was new to us. MobiTV apparently works as a kind of mobile video content aggregator. Its overall business, results and business models and its competitors deserve further study.

4.3 Walled gardens What was emerging in the US mobile media market cannot mainly be characterised as exclusive arrangements. There were exclusive agreements, such as between Cingular and HBO, but most of the video services came from content providers that had not locked themselves to any specific operator. This seemed to be the case for audio and text-based content also. With some exceptions, content providers seemed to provide services to any mobile operator as long as they could reach an agreement. What was developing was, however, a market based on walled gardens. The mobile operators negotiated deals with content providers. Based on this, the mobile operators could provide content services to their customers. The customers then got access to the content provided through their operator. They could not access content their operator did not have in its portfolio. The customers were locked in the walled garden of their operator, which charged through the monthly bill for the content, through subscription plan add-ons, and/or pay per piece or kB. The mix of third party content and walled gardens may be illustrated by using Cingular as an example. Cingular provided content from independent providers and MobiTV. Cingular was specific that it was not responsible for the content from these providers: “Content may be provided by independent providers. Cingular cannot control the content of messages, ringtones, games, or graphics. Cingular is not a publisher of third-party content and is not responsible for any opinions, advice, statements, other information, services or goods provided by third parties. Third-party content providers may impose additional charges. Cingular is not responsible for loss of disclosure of any sensitive information you transmit or for the effects of Services on devices.”51 As argued above, most of the content provided by Cingular was available on other networks also. The exception was HBO for which Cingular has and exclusive arrangement.52 The Cingular subscriber was, however, locked in Cingular’s walled garden. The Cingular subscriber could access the content made available by Cingular, through the MEdia Net services, but nothing outside of this. What was not transparent in our material was the nature of the arrangements between the mobile operator and the content providers. There was not such a 51 52

http://www.cingular.com/media/terms/#section1 http://www.hbo.com/mobile/index.html

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 17

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

thing as CPA in the US market. Transactions seemed to be between the content provider and the mobile operator. How were payments made between the actors? Did the content providers get a share based on usage, or did the mobile operator pay flat rate for enabling access to the content? And were there more actors like MobiTV serving as content aggregators? These and similar questions remain open.

4.4 The dominance of the cable TV model Thus, what we found was that the open Internet model was not a traceable model in the US mobile content market. Instead, the finding described above – of a market with exclusive terminals, and with walled gardens with some degree of exclusivity – indicate that the US market for mobile content was evolving in a way similar to the classic cable TV model. Exclusive terminals: One feature of the US mobile content market was that it was based on exclusive terminals. This was quite similar in the cable TV market. Here, the television sets themselves may be used across platforms, networks and services, but the set-top-boxes for signal decoding, APIs and conditional access53 are in most markets proprietary. In Norway, the cable companies provide a set top box with their subscription for the customers to rent. When cable companies have not agreed on a common standard, the reason is partly that they have different preferences for technological standards and the services they want to enable. Another reason is linked to keeping switching costs high for the customers. Limited content exclusivity: Another feature we found was that there was some provision of exclusive content in terms of portals and a limited number of services, but that most content seemed to be accessible from many operators. In the cable TV markets, the exclusivity of content is also limited. The most popular channels are usually available on most cable networks. The channels and cable companies negotiate terms for making the channels accessible on the cable network. All networks would want the most popular channels, and usually, the most popular channels, especially those financed by advertisements, would want as broad penetration as possible. Consequently, most channels would want to be able to make agreements with several cable network providers and avoid exclusive arrangements. There are, however, several exceptions to this. Typically this would include payTV channels like movie channels and some sports channels, which do not necessarily need a big audience in terms of market shares, but rather a critical mass of paying customers. These could benefit from being promoted to potential customers by the cable company and may therefore make exclusive deals with cable companies that wish to use exclusive provision of attractive content a benefit of their network. Walled gardens: The feature we found that limited the openness of the mobile content service provision most strongly was that the mobile services were accessible in walled gardens only. This also parallels cable TV markets which constitute classic walled gardens. The channels and services accessible for a cable television subscriber depend fully on which channels that are provided by the cable company. A subscriber to the services of a cable company cannot access channels not provided by this company. 53 In the analogue cable market, a set top box is usually not necessary for the basic package of channels, but for additional services and channels, the subscriber would need such a box. For digital services, a set top box is required.

18 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

As we can see, the market structure of the cable TV market was quite similar to what seems to be the basic structure of the mobile content market in the US. To what degree it is a wise move to base the mobile content market on the cable TV model is contested and will be commented in the conclusion. We shall in the following discuss what may explain the choice of the cable TV-model for the US mobile market.

4.5 Why the cable TV model? To explain why the cable TV model dominates in the US mobile media market, it may be useful to look both to institutional explanations – and to the motivations of the market actors. In terms of institutional explanations, it is important to note that the US cable TV industry has been highly successful. It would therefore in those terms be a tempting model to apply also to other media markets. Further, the US mobile market has never been one mobile market. The different standards (CDMA, GSM and iDEN) contribute to creating separate markets for terminals. And – until recently – SMS was not available on all technologies and there was even lack of interchange of SMS messages. Thus, an open model for the mobile market may not even have been considered. A more closed model may have been the default solution. The number of choices on how to provide mobile services add up to the mobile market borrowing several characteristics from the cable TV model. When discussing the possible motivations for each choice, we can only speculate. Seeing the market from the point of view of the mobile operators, there may be several possible motivations for approaching mobile content markets from a cable TV model: •

Increase switching costs (and hence increase loyalty)

•

Differentiation through exclusivity

•

Stimulate traffic and increase traffic charges

•

Generate revenue from content

•

Modernity (not falling behind)

Looking at the strategies regarding exclusive terminals, there is no doubt that the operators strive for differentiation through exclusivity. They also aim at increased switching costs, as evidenced by different software solutions on the phones. With these adaptations, the phones can probably be reused on other compatible networks, but they will be of little value when trying to use more advanced services (unless the customer is a geek that is able to change the software on her phone, but that again means incurring a switching cost). The provision of content services that require operator specific phones clearly shows that video content is used to increase switching costs. The way the content is collected, packaged and marketed shows that exclusive appearance may be valued as important in order to differentiate, but, there is little exclusive content except for the packaging itself. The calling plans vary considerably. Most of them will have as effect that the operators earn more from increased traffic. Other calling plans have unlimited minutes but have higher monthly charges. In both cases, there is a motivation in stimulating traffic and increasing traffic charges (direct or indirect charges).

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 19

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

It is more uncertain whether there are any ambitions to generate revenue from content. There are examples of per clip-pricing (audio or video clips) or channel subscriptions, but we do not know the contractual arrangements between the operators and the content providers or aggregators. Hence, we do not know whether the operators get any extra revenue from video content. Finally, modernity may be a motivation. Even though the volumes appear to be low, the capability to provide video content is new and the business models are still uncertain. The operators give much emphasis to their video content in their marketing. To us, this indicates that there is great uncertainty and a strong fear from being left behind in case there is a large market for mobile video content. Hence, modernity appears to be an important motivation. Whether this factor has any strong impact will be clear when we see the development of subscriber numbers among the four operators: T-Mobile does not have any of these services so far, and probably will not get any in 2006. A change in the growth pattern (see table 1) to the disadvantage of T-Mobile may indicate that this is important. Seen from the perspective of the providers of mobile video content, i.e. TV channels and aggregators, there is clearly interest in increased revenue or increased visibility from mobile video, as long as these services do not cannibalise existing business. This may make a business based on walled gardens and specific terminals relatively safe, as there is practically no risk that the content will find its way to competing media platforms. It is more unclear, however, whether the mobile video content providers have any real interest in exclusive deals with one mobile operator, unless they get sufficient compensation for not providing the content to anybody else. Our data appear to support this, as there is considerable overlap between the offerings and only few examples of truly exclusive content. We choose to interpret this as an expression of uncertainty, if not confusion. The content providers feel that they need to try this new channel, but they do not have any clear strategies or business models for this so far. This is similar to the early presence of media on the World Wide Web, as observed in studies in the mid 1990s (2, 4, 5).

20 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

5 Conclusions Our main findings are that: 1. Phones are exclusive and provided by mobile operators. 2. Content packaging is exclusive. The portals/environments for content services are exclusively provided to the operators’ customers. 3. The content on these content service portals is mainly non-exclusive. Although there are some instances of exclusivity, most content services seem to be provided without exclusivity arrangements. The content appears to be available to whatever operator will negotiate a deal with the content provider. 4. The content is surrounded by walled gardens. The customer cannot access content not provided by their mobile operator, and the content is not available on other platforms than the operator’s branded terminals. In launching mobile content services, the mobile operators have adopted a business model that is very similar to the well-known business model of cable TV. Whether this is a suitable business model for mobile content, and for whom, is an open question. There are different actors on the arena with respect to mobile content: consumers, network operators, TV channels or other media corporations, telephone manufacturers, and mobile content aggregators. Other relevant actors could be independent programme producers and regulators, although we have not observed these in this study. In mobile telephony, voice and messaging will give larger revenues for many years, if not for ever. While succeeding in generating switching costs, the mobile operators risk giving users as strong reasons to go to another operator as reasons to stay. With all likelihood the walled garden approach will reduce the total volume of consumption compared to a situation where all attractive content is available. In a regime of this kind there is little, if any, room for usergenerated content. In the long run this reduces traffic with detrimental effect for content providers and for mobile operators. For the operators, this may be a very high price to pay for increased switching costs, potentially moving consumption away from mobile phones to other kinds of portable devices. The results presented in this note are uncertain. More thorough analysis of the same data, and data about use of these services, the contractual arrangements between content providers and operators, and analysis of the actual content of these services may reveal other patterns and strengthen or weaken our conclusions.

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 21

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

References 1

Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, tenth report. FCC 05-173, Federal Communications Commission, Washington DC, September 2005. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-173A1.pdf

2

Lars Bo Eriksen and Pål Sørgaard. Organisational implementation of WWW in Scandinavian newspapers: Tradition based approaches dominate. In Bo Dahlbom et al., editors, Proceedings of the 19th Information systems Research seminar In Scandinavia, pages 333-349, Lökeberg (Göteborg), 10-13 August 1996.

3

Petter Nielsen and Ole Hanseth. Enabling an Operator-Independent Transaction Model for Mobile Phone Content Service Provision through the Open CPA Platform, 2003. In John L King and Kalle Lyytinen, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop on Standard Making: A Critical Research Frontier for Information Systems, pages 344-353, Seattle, WA.

4

Jonathan W. Palmer and Lars Bo Eriksen: Digital Newspapers Explore Marketing on the Internet. Commun. ACM 42(9):32-40 (1999).

5

Tanja Storsul, 1999. Nye medier og ny politikk? – om eierskap og mangfold i det nye mediebildet. Norsk medietidsskrift 1-1999:107-126.

22 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Appendix: table of video content available In the table below, we have used yellow to highlight channels provided by only one operator and that did not appear on the list of channels provided by MobiTV. In the list of channels from MobiTV we have used blue to highlight the channels that MobiTV claimed it provided to Sprint and Cingular. Channels in bold face are channels where we have found positive information about exclusivity.

Telenor R&D N 12/2006 - 23

US Mobile Operators and their Content Services

Verizon V CAST

Cingular

ABC ABC News Now AccuWeather.com Adult Swim

Sprint

MobiTV Global A&E Network

ABC News Now

ABC News Now

Animal Planet

Cartoon Network

Bloomberg Television Bravo Cartoon Network CBC Newsworld

Cartoon Network Mobile

CBS and ET to Go CBS News to Go Channel 4 Chaos CMT

CNNtoGO Comedy Central

CNN

CNN to GO Comedy Time

Discovery Channel

CNBC CNET CNN Comedy Time C-Span C-SPAN2 Discovery Discovery en Espanol Discovery Kids Discovery Mobile

Disney Mobile Studios E! ESPN

ESPN

FOX Sports

FOX Mobile Fox News Fox Sports

ESPN Fashion TV FOX News Channel FOX Sports FUSE

ESPN Extreme Fashion TV Fox News Channel FOX Sports G4TechTV GMTV

GoTV HBO Mobile family HBO Mobile ifilm

ifilm ITN ITN Weather

Just for Laughs Kerrang KISS Living TV Looney Tunes

Looney Tunes

MarketWatch MAXX Sports Meteo Media MLB.COM Mobile Mobi Trailers MSNBC MTV, MTV2, mtvu Music Choice

Music Choice Nano TV

NASCAR.COM to go NBC Mobile

NBC Mobile

NBC NFL Network

NBC Mobile

Nickelodeon RDI Sesame Street Shift ShortsTV ShortsTV Corto Sirius Hits Smash Hits Sports Illustrated Sprint TV The History Channel The Mic The OC The Weather Channel

The Weather Channel

The Weather Channel

Toon World

The Shopping Channel The Weather Channel The Weather network TLC Toon World Treehouse

Univision V CAST Ent News V CAST Music Videos V CAST Showcase V CAST Sports VH1 V40 YTV

24 - Telenor R&D N 12/2006