OVUM_, The Role of Public Access Wi-FI in Mobile Operator Strategy (2010)

5/21/2018 OVUM_, The Role of Public Access Wi-FI in Mobile Operator Strategy (2010)

1/27

www.ovum.com

The role of public accessWi-Fi in mobile operatorstrategy

28 May 2010

Steven Hartley


2/27

1 of 26

Table of Contents................................................................................................................1

The role of public access Wi-Fi in mobile operator strategy...............................................2

Executive summary..........................................................................................................2

Mobile data usage pushes Wi-Fi back on to the agenda..................................................5

Someone still has to pay for Wi-Fi..................................................................................10

Wi-Fi versus (or plus) femtocells....................................................................................11

Wi-Fi device and network availability is the key decision driver.....................................12

Seamless technical and commercial Wi-Fi / cellular integration is a prerequisite for

success...........................................................................................................................16

Future opportunities for Wi-Fi.........................................................................................20

Wi-Fi case study: AT&T..................................................................................................22

Ovum 2010. Unauthorised reproduction prohibited.


3/27

2 of 26

THE ROLE OF PUBLIC ACCESS WI-FI IN MOBILE OPERATOR STRATEGY 1

Ovum 2010. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

The role of public access Wi-Fi inmobile operator strategy

Executive summary

In a nutshell

Public access Wi-Fi has stormed back onto mobile operators agendas as

mobile data traffic growth has prompted them to seek ways of reducingthe load on the radio access network. However, we believe that this

renewed interest, and shift of emphasis from voice, will not lead to a

flurry of public access Wi-Fi network building. Indeed, public access Wi-Fi

can be useful to operators if they have it, but will not be essential in the

long term if they do not.

Key messages

Wi-Fi offers cheap traffic offload and user experience benefits. Wi-Fi

has provided tangible data offload benefits to its main proponents, which has

helped offload the growth in mobile data traffic from the radio access network

at low cost. The technology can also offer an improved user experience,through faster, less congested connectivity and improved indoor coverage.

If you have Wi-Fi, use it. Integrated operators with Wi-Fi assets that have

low-cost capacity available are advised to sweat their Wi-Fi assets as much as

possible to offload data traffic.

If you can wholesale Wi-Fi cheaply, investigate it. Operators without their

own assets, but with access to reasonably priced wholesale Wi-Fi, should also

consider the economics of offloading via Wi-Fi.

If you have no access to cheap Wi-Fi, focus on cellular. However, mobile-

only players with no access to Wi-Fi should not build their own Wi-Fi networks.

Investment would be better focused on enhancing the mobile network.

Wi-Fi and femtocells are not mutually exclusive in the home, but metro

networks are likely to be cellular. Wi-Fi and femtocells will ultimately co-

exist in integrated home gateways. However, in metro-networks, cellular

technologies will come to dominate, making public access Wi-Fi a stop-gap

measure for most mobile operators, except those with access to cheap Wi-Fi

capacity.

Seamless technical integration is a critical success factor. The user

experience must provide seamless connectivity between cellular and Wi-Fi

networks. Seamless connectivity is a result of both applications on the device

and back-end systems that manage authentication and policy control.



4/27

3 of 26



Seamless commercial integration is vital too. The role of Wi-Fi accessbundling in mobile tariffs is an essential element of success, particularly in

relation to encouraging uptake for offload. This is especially the case where

unlimited mobile tariffs prevail. However, in order to ensure economic

viability, a portfolio of tariffs is needed that establishes Wi-Fi as a value-added

solution and not a commodity.

Opportunity for international roaming to bypass cellular and use Wi-Fi.

To date, Wi-Fi roaming is complicated by a lack of technical standards and high

costs. Nonetheless, there is potential for operators to offer attractive

international data roaming tariffs utilizing Wi-Fi providers rather than cellular

operators.

Ovum view

After years of much discussion, but little success, in using Wi-Fi for voice services,

public access Wi-Fi has risen in prominence during the past year in response to the

growing demand for mobile data. The primary reason is that Wi-Fi networks offer

cheap capacity to operators struggling with cellular network congestion due to

rapid mobile data growth.

Several high-profile operators have successfully managed to offload their data

traffic. One of the most notable is PCCW in Hong Kong, which has reportedly

offloaded an average of 45% of its mobile data traffic, with peaks at 20%. Other

operators, notably Orange, see public access Wi-Fi as a cornerstone of their fixedmobile convergence strategy and highlight the improved user experience that Wi-Fi

can provide. Yet, if Wi-Fi is so great, why arent all operators building public access

Wi-Fi networks?

Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer as to the role of Wi-Fi in an operators

strategy. Much will depend on the urgency of the capacity demand; an operators

existing network infrastructure; Wi-Fi-enabled device penetration; and the

availability of operator-owned or wholesale access to public Wi-Fi network capacity.

However, the mobile industry is not under threat from Wi-Fi in the long term. The

technology has proven extremely useful recently and should be considered as part

of an operators network strategy if abundant capacity is available on Wi-Ficompared to an operators mobile network. Nonetheless, the reality is that only

certain types of operator will be able to benefit from Wi-Fi. The remainder would

be best served by investing in their mobile networks and this investment will

ultimately lead to an undermining of Wi-Fis role.

The critical criterion for using Wi-Fi is quite simply available capacity at a

reasonable price. It is little surprise that the greatest advocates of Wi-Fi also have

the largest Wi-Fi networks in their home markets. Therefore, the use of Wi-Fi

becomes more a question of sweating assets, rather than requiring a radical

change in investment strategy. As a result, it is most likely to be the integrated

incumbent operators that pushed Wi-Fi several years ago that will shout the



5/27

4 of 26



loudest about Wi-Fi. They finally have something for which they can use thecapacity available in their Wi-Fi networks.

Nonetheless, we do not advocate the building of public access Wi-Fi networks by

operators currently lacking them. Wi-Fis technical benefits are only apparent over

short distances. Therefore, many sites will be needed, which will lead to high site

rental costs. Alternatively, it will lead to increased competition for Wi-Fi contracts

with independent retailers, such as coffee shops or restaurants, which will reduce

margins and therefore the economic viability of Wi-Fi offload.

For players without their own Wi-Fi there are two options. First, the availability of a

reasonably-priced wholesale Wi-Fi provider offers a cheap option that avoids the

capex of building a public access Wi-Fi network. In this instance, the UK offers aunique example. The incumbent BT has no mobile operation, but does have the

countrys largest public access Wi-Fi network. Therefore, it is in BTs best interests

to maximize the revenue opportunity and offer wholesale access to mobile

operators looking to offload traffic the classic win-win situation. However, in

other markets, specialist Wi-Fi providers such as iPass are available.

The second option for non-Wi-Fi owning players is simply to bypass public access

Wi-Fi altogether. In this case, instead of investing in expensive wholesale access or

building its own network, an operator can focus investment on the mobile network.

Telstra in Australia is an excellent example of this. Despite being the incumbent, it

has few public access Wi-Fi hotspots. However, it has a brand new, rapidly

evolving high-performance HSPA network. Additionally, microcells are gainingprominence, so Wi-Fis benefits of offering high-capacity over small areas will be

eroded over time. Therefore, the need for Wi-Fi becomes irrelevant.

Irrespective of how public access Wi-Fi is provided, close integration of the cellular

and Wi-Fi networks is absolutely critical. Authentication and handover between the

networks is a prerequisite for success. On the device a connectivity manager needs

to ensure that the user is not burdened with continuously entering login details.

However, the network side is important too. A gateway server is needed to retrieve

authentication data, most likely from the Home Location Register (HLR) on 3GPP

networks.

Integration is not merely a technical issue. An awareness of how public access Wi-Fi fits into the operators commercial model is also required. Wi-Fi should be made

available as a value-add to those users most likely to most use of it, i.e. those with

big-screen mobile broadband plans or smartphones particularly those with large

or unlimited data allowances. For other users, it is important to have a tariff

portfolio that makes adoption easy if necessary, but operators should not position

Wi-Fi as a commodity. Otherwise it will simply become another over-utilized pipe.



6/27

5 of 26



Mobile data usage pushes Wi-Fi back on to theagenda

Mobile data traffic growth prompts operators to offload

The growth in mobile data traffic is well documented. However, there are two

specifics of the growth in traffic that have an important bearing on the role of Wi-Fi

in mobile operator strategies.

The first is the devices driving this growth in traffic. Cole Brodman, CTO at T-

Mobile, said in November 2009 that smartphones use 50 times more bandwidth

than feature phones. The growth in smartphones looks set to continue as operatorsand device vendors push customers to upgrade. However, according to data from

NSN a smartphone, on average, uses about 200400MB of data per month,

compared to a consumer dongle that uses 24GB of data per month. Therefore,

smartphone growth is driving more traffic per user than before and the sheer rate

of adoption is adding to traffic volumes. Nonetheless, the growth in big-screen

mobile broadband, although smaller in terms of number of users, has a marked

impact on mobile data traffic. It is these very devices that are also most likely to

be equipped with Wi-Fi.

The second aspect of this traffic growth is that it is not being shared equally across

operators networks. As we stated in our report Mobile broadband profitability: a

shared responsibility, much of this traffic is concentrated on specific cells. Furtherdata from NSN verifies this point, with the vendor stating that 15% of sites carry

approximately 50% of the traffic. Therefore, the hotspot nature of Wi-Fi fits very

neatly with this scenario.

Cheap capacity makes Wi-Fi attractive

The role of mobile data traffic growth as the key driver for todays renewed interest

in public access Wi-Fi is vital. As a result, many operators are starting to use Wi-Fi

networks to offload mobile data traffic from smartphones and laptops in congested

areas. The reasoning behind this decision is the availability of cheap capacity.

Perhaps the most vocal proponent of Wi-Fi in the past has been Orange, whichoriginally envisaged Wi-Fi as a crucial component of its fixedmobile convergence

strategy. In particular, it was interested in using Wi-Fi to boost indoor coverage for

its voice services. Furthermore, it somewhat pushed against the industry

consensus in its support for GAN. Its efforts have never really translated into

commercial success, primarily due to the limited availability of GAN-enabled

devices. However, today even it concedes that it has evolved its Wi-Fi strategy to

focus on the offload of mobile traffic from the 3G network.

Wi-Fi offers a potentially dramatic impact on data traffic

The impact of using Wi-Fi can be dramatic. For example, AT&T has seen year-on-

year growth for the number of connections to its Wi-Fi network running at well



7/27

6 of 26



over 300% for the last four quarters, to 1Q10. PCCW in Hong Kong reported inMay 2009 that it was offloading 45% of its 3G data traffic, with a peak of up to

20% in high-demand areas. In the UK, BT set a target for Wi-Fi usage in 2009 of

933 million minutes. It hit 1.2 billion, 29% over target. Furthermore, 90% of BTs

Wi-Fi users in 2007 were business customers. In 2010, that proportion is just 45%.

Clearly Wi-Fi is back on operators agendas as a mass-market network technology

option.

Investigating this usage in more detail reveals that users of the data-intensive

devices that are driving mobile data traffic are also adopting Wi-Fi. This would

suggest a mutually beneficial situation for Wi-Fi both operators and users want to

use it.

Figures from BTs Wi-Fi network (see Figure 1) show that iPhones, iPods,

BlackBerry devices, and Android handsets are increasingly connecting to Wi-Fi, just

as mobile operators seeking to offload traffic would wish. It should be noted that

the data in Figure 1 is not necessarily 3G offload and will contain BTs fixed

broadband customers using Wi-Fi nomadically. It is also important to note that the

iPhone figures exclude those with Wi-Fi access bundled with their mobile operators

package. These users bypass the access page. Therefore, the presence of handsets

in this chart is even more impressive.

Figure 1 BT session usage by device (March 2010)

PC, 70%

Mac, 14%

iPhone, 10%

Other, 1.4%

Android, 0.3%

BlackBerry, 0.3%

iPod, 4%

PC, 70%

Mac, 14%

iPhone, 10%

Other, 1.4%

Android, 0.3%

BlackBerry, 0.3%

iPod, 4%

Source: BT

More handset-specific data is available from UK Wi-Fi network operator The Cloud,

which signed a deal with O2 UK to offload iPhone traffic in September 2007. In

October 2009, 70% of traffic in its City of London and McDonalds restaurants

networks was generated by Apple devices (iPhones, iPod Touch, and laptops). At



8/27

7 of 26



the same time, the average iPhone user was using the Cloud five to six times amonth. Additionally, 6065% of all iPhone users registered to access the Cloud

(40% of UK iPhone users in October 2009), doing so at least once a month.

Further data from virtual Wi-Fi network provider WeFi points to just how much

data, depending on the device, can be offloaded to Wi-Fi. Its 1Q10 WeFi Analystics

Report shows that 60% of laptops connected to Wi-Fi generate more than 2GB of

data in a month, compared to just 10% on 3G. Although less extreme, Android and

Symbian devices also show consistently higher data usage when connected to Wi-

Fi.

Improving performance for the end user

Another driver of the recent rebirth of Wi-Fi as a complementary wireless

technology is the desire to improve end-user performance. Assuming there are no

capacity constraints on the Wi-Fi network, Wi-Fi offers a dedicated data network.

In addition, this network is only available to the subset of customers with Wi-Fi-

enabled devices. Theoretically, Wi-Fi can also deliver higher downlink speeds (see

Figure 2), which, at least within hotspot coverage, potentially offers customers a

far better experience than a 3G network. And just as in cellular networks,

standards and technology evolution (such as through smart antennae) is boosting

capacity as well as pure speed.

It can also be argued that Wi-Fis next-generation standard, 802.11n, is more

mature than the cellular industrys equivalent, LTE. The Wi-Fi Alliance has already

certified 1,241 802.11n products. Moreover, 802.11n has a theoretical maximum

downlink speed of 450Mbps, four and a half times that of LTE, albeit over shorter

distances.



9/27

8 of 26



Figure 2 Wi-Fi and 3GPP technology maximum theoretical downlink speeds

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6

Generation of technology standard

Maximumtheoreticaldownlinkspeed(Mbps)

WiFi

3GPP

802.11n

802.11g802.11b

LTEHSPA+

(64QAM &MIMO)

HSPA+(MIMO)

HSPA+(64QAM)

HSPAUMTS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6



WiFi

3GPP

802.1

1g802.11b

LTEHSPA+

(64QAM &MIMO)

HSPA+(MIMO)

HSPA+(64QAM)

HSPAUMTS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6



WiFi

3GPP

802.11n

802.1

1g802.11b

LTEHSPA+

(64QAM &MIMO)

HSPA+(MIMO)

HSPA+(64QAM)

HSPAUMTS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6



WiFi

3GPP

802.1

1g802.11b

LTEHSPA+

(64QAM &MIMO)

HSPA+(MIMO)

HSPA+(64QAM)

HSPAUMTS

Source: Ovum / Wi-Fi Alliance

Orange focuses on indoor coverage too

Continuing its previous focus on Wi-Fi, albeit focused on voice in the past, Orange

also sees Wi-Fi helping to improve indoor coverage at home for consumers and

in the office for business customers. This is another facet of improving the

customer experience, but is not focused on preventing or easing congestion, or

boosting speeds versus the macro network. It is simply about providing a service

where the macro network coverage is too weak.

In particular, it emphasizes its Livebox gateway as core to this strategy. As such,

the strategy is less relevant to public access Wi-Fi and is also the point at which

Wi-Fi and femtocells most closely overlap (on which more later). Nonetheless, if

the businesses involved are retail outlets wishing to make their access public then

the overlap is worthy of note. Moreover, encouraging customers to use Wi-Fi at

home or in the office educates them to adopt similar behaviors in public.

Delivering the last mile via Wi-Fi remains an option

Despite the seemingly universal failure of municipal Wi-Fi networks in the early

21st century there is still a school of thought that suggests that Wi-Fi could deliver

last-mile connectivity. Such capability would suggest that public access Wi-Fi



10/27

9 of 26



networks can become even better at delivering operator-grade coverage. One ofthe primary benefits espoused for Wi-Fi is that this coverage can also be delivered

extremely cost effectively.

For example, Wi-Fi equipment vendor Ruckus Wireless proclaims its Smart Wi-Fi

solution offers network deployment in months, with capex just one fifth of that for

an equivalent WiMAX network. Through smart antennae and dynamic beamforming,

Ruckus claims to more efficiently deliver a stronger signal, over longer distances,

thereby reducing interference.

Its most large-scale deployment to date is for Tikona in Mumbai, India. Last-mile

access is delivered by using access points overhanging the sides of apartment

buildings and wrapping the building with Wi-Fi coverage. A point-to-point wirelesstransmission system relays traffic back to train stations from where it is carried by

fiber. Ruckus reports installing 100 access points per day, because intrusive

installation in each household is avoided. By February 2010, it had installed15,000

access points in total, with a target of another 50,000 by the end of the year.

Crucially Ruckus claims that the cost of passing each household is just $510 per

household. Given that the service is charged at INR3,000 ($66) per month, it is

clear that penetration does not need to be high for the business case to turn a

profit. Ruckus has revealed that the capex outlay breaks even at just 150

customers per month, although this doesnt include opex.

Interference and security concerns continue to rumble on

Despite the clear benefits that Wi-Fi can bring to mobile operators, two issues

continue to arise in relation to its use.

The first is interference. As Wi-Fi uses unlicensed spectrum, this is a very real

issue and can bring an access point to a standstill. This is because the device will

defer transmission until the inference stops. In busy city center locations, where

multiple hotspots could be visible to a device, this is a significant concern. Most Wi-

Fi specialist vendors such as Ruckus Wireless, BelAir Networks, and Cisco claim to

have resolved this issue, but for mobile operators building a business case on

quality of service this will continue to be a major stumbling block.

The second issue is security. This is particularly important to operators partnering

third parties, although any public or private Wi-Fi access point accessed by a user

with a Wi-Fi-enabled cellular device is open to abuse. In 2006, the Wi-Fi Alliance

mandated that all Wi-Fi certified devices must be WPA2 compliant, which boosted

security considerably from the earlier WPA variant.

Nonetheless, security and interference are issues that technical developments by

vendors have been unable to completely alleviate. It appears that operators that

are Wi-Fi advocates claim that neither is an issue. Detractors claim both are cause

for concern. Therefore, they are unlikely to stop any operators considering Wi-Fi,

although we would stress the need for rigorous testing to ensure network

standards and the end-user experience are maintained.



11/27

10 of 26



Someone still has to pay for Wi-Fi

Theres no such thing as a free lunch

The previous points paint a rosy picture of Wi-Fi as a viable solution to alleviate

network congestion and bolster end-user experience. However, a fundamental

question remains unanswered: What are the costs of using Wi-Fi versus

alternatives?

Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer as much will depend on the urgency of

the capacity demand; an operators existing network infrastructure; Wi-Fi-enabled

device penetration; and the availability of operator-owned or wholesale access to

public Wi-Fi network capacity. Essentially, if an operator has access to its own or a

cheap Wi-Fi network with available capacity then it is worth investigating,

particularly if the cellular network needs considerable investment and time to meet

demand. If not, then focusing investment on the mobile network will be most

beneficial.

Even the use of Wi-Fi in the home or business to offload traffic is not without its

price. Fixed ISPs are baulking at the costs of transporting their own rising traffic,

without the additional burden of carrying a mobile operators data too. As Graeme

Oxby, Managing Director of Virgin Media in the UK, said in April 2010, There's an

assumption that offloading that traffic is free, but someone has got to pay for it.

Fixed-line customers will end up paying more, or mobile customers will end uppaying more, but someone, somewhere will have to cover the cost of carrying that

additional traffic. This view applies equally to Wi-Fi and femtocells too.

Building Wi-Fi requires a return on investment, but the money may be

better spent elsewhere

This principle is borne out in public access Wi-Fi too. Someone still needs to build

the Wi-Fi network, be it an operator or wholesaler, and will expect a return on that

investment. Again, the relative costs of carrying data over a Wi-Fi network and a

cellular network are unfortunately too complex to state definitively. Wi-Fi vendors

display extremely strong business cases showing Wi-Fi as being far more cost

effective than cellular. Wireless infrastructure vendors state equally strong casesfor macro-network investments.

However, we believe that building a dedicated Wi-Fi network could be an

unnecessary financial and resource distraction. Our rationale for this is that Wi-Fi

only covers a small area per access point. Therefore, site rental costs will be high

for what is essentially a micro-network that needs to be operated in parallel to the

cellular network.

In contrast, micro cellular networks, using femtocell technology or a combination

of distributed antennae and repeaters, are also gaining prominence (particularly in

the migration to LTE on higher spectrum bands). Therefore, investing in technology

that can be integrated into an operators dedicated cellular network is likely to



12/27

11 of 26



make more financial sense in the longer term. At the very least, developing Wi-Fito cellular handover policies, management mechanisms, and systems is a layer of

cost that can be eradicated in a solely cellular network.

Wi-Fi is something of a stop-gap measure

Furthermore, we believe that the continued investment in cellular networks will

mean that the key benefit of public access Wi-Fi to an operator (cheap capacity)

will be eroded over time. As such, in time operators with no Wi-Fi network will

have even less need to build Wi-Fi than they do today. That is not to say that

operators with their own Wi-Fi, or access to cheap wholesale Wi-Fi, cannot

continue to benefit from it. However, the commercial advantage will be reduced.

Therefore, the optimum advice for operators is to consider Wi-Fi as part of an

evolving network strategy, but to carefully investigate the costs involved in

building, expanding, or wholesaling Wi-Fi access. Wi-Fi can clearly provide benefits

to operators, but these may be more costly than alternatives, depending on an

operators specific circumstances and needs. In time, a focus on boosting the

cellular network could provide greater return on investment that deflecting

resources to Wi-Fi.

Wi-Fi versus (or plus) femtocells

Theyre not exclusive, but it all depends on what youhave where

The cost conundrum mentioned previously is very similar to the debate

surrounding the role of Wi-Fi and femtocells. Although not strictly relevant to the

public access Wi-Fi debate, the role of microcells in future macro-network planning

is becoming more prevalent, so is difficult to ignore completely.

We have stated previously, most recently in our report Femtocell market update:

slow but steady progress, that femtocells have their uses, but the business case

today remains our greatest concern. This is very close to our assessment of Wi-Fi

too. The technology has its uses, but is not a panacea.

Indeed, we believe that in the long term, the future of Wi-Fi and femtocells in the

home are inexorably linked. We feel that the most appropriate implementation of

femtocells is in integrated home gateways. That way a device can seamlessly move

onto each technology depending on its capabilities. However, policies applied by

the network, device, and customer will be essential in ensuring that the best

network is selected based on cost, performance, and even application.

Nonetheless, in the macro-network environment, i.e. in public places, femtocells

have an essential advantage in that they use the same radio technology as the

cellular network. There is growing interest in metro-femtocell networks,

particularly with the move to LTE at higher frequencies. Planning and management

of such microcells is more complex than todays situation, but an operator at least



13/27

12 of 26



benefits from a single radio access network technology. With Wi-Fi, the network isessentially a parallel network and the costs of integration, handover and

management become a burden. Therefore, we believe that public access Wi-Fi has

a limited long-term future, in most scenarios, because cellular technology

developments will supersede the need for it and network planners will appreciate

the reduced complexity of one radio access technology.

Wi-Fi device and network availability is the keydecision driver

Wi-Fi device penetration continues to grow

The number of Wi-Fi devices available has risen dramatically as smartphone

vendors have included the capability in their data-centric devices. This is key to

making the Wi-Fi offload case viable. Not only are smartphones likely to consume

greater volumes of data than feature phones, but with Wi-Fi on board they are also

capable of offloading that data.

This assertion is borne out by data from the Wi-Fi alliance, which has seen the

number of certified Wi-Fi handsets grow 142% from 2008 to 2009. By March 2010

it reported over 500 certified handsets. Ovums own data, from our Smartphone

capability analyzer: 2Q091Q10, also highlights the increasing Wi-Fi penetration

among smartphones, as shown in Figure 3. Therefore, operators in markets wherethese devices are gaining significant penetration are best placed to leverage Wi-Fi.



14/27

13 of 26



Figure 3 Proportion of smartphones launched with Wi-Fi capability, 1Q091Q10

64%

82%86% 86% 88%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Proportionofsmartphones

launchedwithW-iFicapability

(%)

64%

82%86% 86% 88%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Proportionofsmartphones

launchedwithW-iFicapability

(%)

Source: Ovum

Battery life remains an issue

One of the major barriers for further Wi-Fi adoption is the strain that an additional

radio puts on the device. One of the most common online complaints about

smartphones from end users is the dramatic difference in battery life between a

feature phone and smartphone. Furthermore, the most common advice in response

is to turn off the Wi-Fi radio. This is hardly conducive to an improved user

experience and will actually encourage users to switch back to 3G. It also

reinforces the belief that public access Wi-Fi is useful if available, but less

attractive if requiring significant investment. Cellular radios in devices are

generally more power efficient.

Kineto Wireless claims to have resolved this problem with its Smart Offload

solution, which offloads both data and voice, via GAN, to Wi-Fi. A downloadable

application turns off the 3G radio when in range of Wi-Fi and all services, voice,

messaging, and data, are diverted to Wi-Fi. However, the solution still requires the

Wi-Fi radio to be switched on, which is generally more power-hungry. In addition,

it requires an operator to have a GAN gateway installed in the network to handle

the traffic switchover. This is fine for the likes of Orange France and T-Mobile USA,

which already have GAN services, but is most likely going to be overly complicated

to other operators.



15/27

14 of 26



Wi-Fi hotspot availability

A second prerequisite for any decision to adopt Wi-Fi is the availability of a cost-

effective Wi-Fi network. It is no coincidence that the greatest proponents of Wi-Fi

offload are also integrated operators that dominate their domestic Wi-Fi landscape.

AT&T can call on 20,000 of its own hotspots in the US, Orange France has 30,000,

and PCCW has 6,000 in Hong Kong. Partnerships with Wi-Fi specialists such as

iPass boost this number even further.

However, an interesting contrast can be seen in Australia. Telstra has very few

public access Wi-Fi hotspots. In addition, it has a new HSPA network that it has

invested in heavily, but which it believes is returning excellent efficiency and end-

user performance. Therefore, it sees no point in investing in a public access Wi-Finetwork. It is happy to see Wi-Fi play a role in the connected home, but has no

concern in developing public access Wi-Fi. It will leverage developments in cellular

technologies to boost capacity.

Another interesting distinction is visible in the UK, where the largest Wi-Fi players,

BT and The Cloud, have no cellular network. Therefore, they can not compete with

the cellular operators, so Wi-Fi offload is an excellent wholesale revenue-

generating opportunity with a limited risk of cannibalization. Both players have

benefited from the rise in mobile data traffic, with BT used by O2, Vodafone,

Orange, and Tesco for the iPhone; O2 for the Palm Pre; and Vodafone for the

Nexus One. At both BT and The Cloud, mobile operators buy capacity so must

range devices according to their expected consumption. For mobile operators, the

lack of a competitive threat from the Wi-Fi providers means that wholesale rates

are more reasonable than building out their own Wi-Fi networks.

As previously mentioned, we do not expect the resurgence in interest in Wi-Fi will

prompt mobile operators to embark on a new round of building public Wi-Fi

networks. The memory of municipal Wi-Fi networks will be sufficient to scare off

investors and the complexities of developing and integrating parallel radio

networks too cumbersome. Furthermore, continued developments in cellular

technology will make the benefit of Wi-Fi today (cheap capacity) less attractive.

Consequently, operators are best served in sweating their existing assets. If these

include Wi-Fi then so be it.

If not, then a mobile-only players choice will depend on the efficiency of its mobile

network and the availability of low-cost wholesale Wi-Fi, and the cost differential in

investing in either of these options. O2 in the UK is an excellent example of this

decision process. When it first started to show the strain of supporting the iPhone,

it went to The Cloud, with its London-centric network, in November 2007. It has

since expanded to nationwide support from BT. The commercial driver for this was

the fact that the time and investment needed to ease its cellular network issues

were outweighed by the relatively lower costs and time advantages of purchasing

wholesale capacity. However, moving forward we do not see O2 developing its own

Wi-Fi real estate. The UK market is such that BT and The Cloud can ease capacity

concerns in the short term. Cellular technical developments may alleviate the needfor Wi-Fi completely in the future, although the desire to maintain wholesale



16/27

15 of 26



revenues at BT and The Cloud may still make wholesale Wi-Fi cost-effective formobile operators in the specific conditions of the UK market. In other markets, Wi-

Fi wholesalers may not be as cost effective.

Open Wi-Fi communities could increase the availability of Wi-Fi even

further

BT also highlights another interesting Wi-Fi phenomenon that of the open Wi-Fi

community. Today, the UKs mobile operators have access to BTs 3,800 public

access hotspots, but BTs total available Wi-Fi footprint in the UK is actually over

1.5 million. This total includes BTs FON and Business Hubs, which allow public

access to the access point, assuming the owner does not opt out. At present these

public community hotspots are not made available to mobile operators, but the

additional footprint could prove attractive. Orange in France also told us that it was

testing such a network, although no decision has yet been made.

Virtual Wi-Fi network provider WeFi has taken this concept even further. It

encourages users to download an application, which then scans for Wi-Fi networks

and reports back to WeFis servers. The aggregated data is then presented back to

users to enable them to find open Wi-Fi hotspots anywhere in the world. By 1Q10

the companys client had been downloaded 5 million times across netbooks, PC,

Android, and Symbian devices. It had also recorded 56 million hotspots in 125

countries, with 100,000 added per day. The proportion of open access Wi-Fi

hotspots that require no prepayment is shown in Table 1.Table 1 Wi-Fi openness by country

Country City % open hotspots % secured hotspots

World - 30% 70%

USA (all) 40% 60%

Israel (all) 46% 54%

Europe (all) 25% 75%

Thailand (all) 49% 51%

- Bangkok 45% 55%

Brazil (all) 30% 70%

- Rio de Janeiro 24% 76%

Argentina (all) 38% 62%

- Buenos Aires 32% 68%

Bahamas (all) 69% 31%

Source: WeFi

The appeal of such open communities make them tempting for mobile operators to

adopt, but security and potential congestion of the access point owners fixed-line



17/27

16 of 26



connection are concerns. For example, the open access hotspots shown in Table 1may be honeytraps to exploit unwary users with viruses or steal authentication

details.

Alternatively, an unsuspecting fixed user with an open hotspot may be penalized

for exceeding a fair-usage policy when a cellular user actually caused the excess.

The scenario is not too far fetched in a dense urban environment, particularly when

unlimited Wi-Fi access is often bundled with a mobile data plan to encourage

offload. A mobile user could easily sit at home and access a neighbors Wi-Fi

access point with little recourse, while threatening the neighbors usage cap. Both

operator-led and independent open Wi-Fi communities will need to deal with this

concern.

Seamless technical and commercial Wi-Fi /cellular integration is a prerequisite forsuccess

A connectivity client on the device is essential, but justpart of the technical puzzle

The issues of security and user authentication are paramount to any mobile

operators commercial use of Wi-Fi. The mobile operator must be able to ensure

that the user has a legitimate right to access the hotspot, and the user needs to

have quality of service and security assured. For the operator, this protects the

commercial integrity of the network and prevents freeloaders using the Wi-Fi

network without paying. For the end user, this goes same way towards ensuring

that the experience justifies the fee.

Seamless authentication and handover is optimal

In addition to the above drivers, any Wi-Fi solution seeking to offload mobile data

traffic must also provide seamless network selection management. We believe that

the optimum solution is to have seamless authentication and handover, optimizing

the SIM cards authentication role. This removes the cumbersome process of theend user having to enter login and password details every time they seek to

connect to a hotspot. The Wi-Fi Alliance reports that one in five respondents to a

user survey still have difficulties connecting wireless devices.

Today, most operators have adopted this approach, most notably AT&T, which

moved from a semi-automated solution in 2009 and saw an enormous spike in Wi-

Fi usage as a result. If the intention is to promote data offload then this must be a

prerequisite. However, PCCW still uses the semi-automated solution that AT&T has

evolved away from. Users must validate that they want to connect to Wi-Fi via

SMS. Orange offers a blend of the two. Automating connection to its own hotspots

and prompting users to connect to a partner.



18/27

17 of 26



Not all devices make it easy to connect to Wi-Fi

Irrespective of the approach taken, getting the connectivity application on to a

device is another obstacle that must be overcome. Most operators promoting Wi-Fi

offload today pre-install the application to ensure tight integration with the device

hardware. However, even at this stage issues can arise. Developing applications

for different operating systems can be costly and, depending on the OS,

complicated.

Device vendors must do more to make multi-radio connectivity more easily

achievable for operators. After all, a new generation of radio technology is arriving

with LTE that will only increase the complexities of radio selection, so it is

something that must be made simpler. Conversely, we have been told thatdeveloping connectivity solutions for the iPhone is best in class. Therefore, the

iPhone offers yet another lesson to the rest of the industry.

Wi-Fi solution vendors are also working to increase the number of devices that can

manage seamless Wi-Fi authentication and connectivity. Kinetos Smart Offload

application is downloadable, meaning that it is not only available to customers

taking a new Wi-Fi device, as in the case of pre-installation, but to the entire

installed base at least those for which Kineto has a downloadable application.

Kinetos application has another benefit to other client solutions. As both voice and

data are offloaded via GAN, so the application switches off the cellular radio when

it connects to Wi-Fi, thereby preserving battery life.

Yet, the technical implementation of seamless connectivity is not merely a case of

putting a piece of client software on the device. First, there is the issue of the

back-end systems that manage the authentication. The second issue is

standardization.

Wi-Fi / cellular integration is not just a device issue

Operators on a 3GPP network will want the request for a public access Wi-Fi

connection to query the HLR. Therefore, there needs to be some form of gateway

that can bridge cellular and Wi-Fi subscriber management.

An example of such an architecture is shown in Figure 4. In this instance,Bridgewaters Service Controller acts as the bridge from IEEE (Wi-Fi) and 3GPP

(HSPA) networks.



19/27

18 of 26



Figure 4 Bridgewater Systems HSPA / Wi-Fi handover architecture

HLR/AuCSecurity

Gateway

1. User connected

to HSPA

2. WiFidetected

3. Security Gateway sendsauthentication request to

Service Controller

5. Security Gateway retrieves aWi-Fi profile to assign Quality of

Service (QoS) profile

7. user allowed ontoWiFi network without

accessing a portal or

logging in

HD Quality

of Service

Username/Password

Control Plane Core

HSPA

Wi-Fi

BRIDGEWATERSSUBSCRIBER DATA

BROKERTM

BRIDGEWATERSERVICE CONTROLLER

4. Service Controller

retrieves authenticationdata from HLR

HLR/AuCSecurity

Gateway

1. User connected

to HSPA

2. WiFidetected

3. Security Gateway sendsauthentication request to

Service Controller

5. Security Gateway retrieves aWi-Fi profile to assign Quality of

Service (QoS) profile

7. user allowed ontoWiFi network without

accessing a portal or

logging in

HD Quality

of Service

Username/Password

Control Plane Core

HSPA

Wi-FiWi-Fi

BRIDGEWATERSSUBSCRIBER DATA

BROKERTM

BRIDGEWATERSERVICE CONTROLLER

4. Service Controller

retrieves authenticationdata from HLR

Source: Bridgewater Systems

Figure 4 also highlights another important area of Wi-Fi offload. The connection to

Bridgewaters Subscriber Data Broker highlights the importance of policy

management. Alongside authentication, deciding what customers get offloaded to

Wi-Fi, where and when, is critical to make the solution viable. Without such an

approach operators could risk cannibalizing margins by offloading users too

frequently. This is especially true if Wi-Fi access is purchased through wholesale.

It may also have a negative impact on users perceptions of the 3G network.

Therefore, it could be more viable to utilize the cellular network where it is

available and has capacity, rather than push everyone to Wi-Fi all the time.

Operators could take an even more sophisticated approach by only offloading

certain applications, such as video.

Standardization is critical for further adoption

Standardization creates two problems for operators. First, it is of concern to

operators seeking to choose a vendor for a Wi-Fi connectivity solution. For example,

Kineto Wireless proclaims the benefits of its GAN-based Smart Offload solution,

whereas BelAir Networks is a proponent of a proprietary solution. However, the

limited uptake of GAN to date makes GAN a quasi-proprietary solution too.

Second, it is particularly problematic with regards to preventing the realization of

the international Wi-Fi roaming opportunity, whereby operators could bypass

cellular roaming agreements for data. The proprietary nature of todays operator-

led solutions is exacerbated across borders.



20/27

19 of 26



However, initiatives are under way to remove this barrier. The IEEEs 802.1xstandard offers a standardized authentication process and has been adopted by the

Wireless Broadband Alliance. On the 3GPP side, there is also the aforementioned

GAN backed by Kineto, but also the SIP-based 3GPP standard of I-WLAN, backed

by Accuris. As always in the standards world, efforts are being made but in

different directions so coordination is limited. Unfortunately, only time can distill

the variances into a common form.

Commercial integration is important too

Integrating Wi-Fi into mobile offerings is not just a technical challenge. As

previously mentioned, it has crucial commercial ramifications. If relied upon too

heavily it could cannibalize revenues and margins. Users could drop their mobile

broadband service altogether if Wi-Fi is deemed sufficient, particularly if most of

their usage is at home and in nomadic locations. Even if not to this extreme, users

may well drop down a tier in the tariff structure if they are not using their monthly

data allowance over cellular. In addition, if Wi-Fi is purchased through an

expensive wholesaler, then excessive Wi-Fi usage simply increases costs. This is

self defeating given that one of the key drivers for using Wi-Fi is to provide cheap

capacity.

Therefore, operators must carefully position Wi-Fi as a value-add offering that is

seen as an as well as rather than an instead of option by customers. Orange

and AT&T exemplify this approach well. Both have a variety of packages thatinclude unlimited access, but only within the highest tariff tiers. Lower-value tariffs

include it as an option.

Details of AT&Ts tariff strategy are in the section of this report titled, Wi-Fi case

study: AT&T. In Oranges case, its Internet Everywhere big-screen mobile

broadband tariffs include unlimited Wi-Fi as does its high-end Origami iPhone tariff.

However, other Origami tariff users can add an Option Plus for Wi-Fi access. For

users outside these plans, prepaid tariffs are also available as is an on-demand

service whereby users simply dial #125# from their handset and enter an SMS

authentication process.

Such multiple touch points increase the chances for monetizing Wi-Fi, while

ensuring that premium users have seamless access. As such, the inclusion of Wi-Fi

becomes a value-added service and not merely a commodity.

However, this commercialization must be placed in the context of the alternative

option for Wi-Fi offload the DIY approach, whereby users choose to access free

Wi-Fi in restaurants, bars, and coffee shops. These hotspots will not necessarily

provide revenues to the mobile operator unless it also happens to be the Wi-Fi

wholesale provider to the venue. The result is cannibalization of revenues.

Nonetheless, we believe this threat is limited by the fact that a mobile-operator

controlled solution will ensure seamless handover and authentication. Therefore,

only the most tech savvy users will take this DIY approach. In order for Wi-Fi

offload to be truly effective it needs to become a mass-market solution. In orderfor that to happen, the experience needs to be as seamless as possible.



21/27

20 of 26



Future opportunities for Wi-Fi

High international data roaming costs are an untappedopportunity

The emergence of Wi-Fi has been driven by the upsurge in mobile data usage.

Therefore, there is also potential for Wi-Fi to resolve another major pain point of

mobile data users. At present, global mobile data roaming charges are prohibitive

to uptake. In the past, we have discussed our belief that demand is sufficiently

elastic that a drop in retail roaming prices would stimulate uptake sufficiently to

more than compensate the price decline.

In the meantime, operators with large global Wi-Fi partnerships would do well to

investigate the potential of offering low-cost roaming. Many offer enterprise

solutions today, yet there is also an opportunity to make this available to

consumers too.

Multinational operators have an advantage in that they often own networks in

multiple countries. Orange has its own hotspots in France, Belgium, and the UK.

However, it offers Wi-Fi access in a total of 92 countries worldwide. The bulk of this

coverage is provided by partners and in particular the major Wi-Fi providers such

as iPass, WeRoam, and Boingo, as shown in Figure 5. Several markets have

multiple partners. For example, in the UK and US, Orange has six partners, and in

Switzerland it has five. Another example is AT&T, which provides access to125,000 hotspots globally through its partner network. BT provides access to

65,000 hotspots.



22/27

21 of 26



Figure 5 Number of countries served by Orange Wi-Fi roaming partners

82

20

16 12 12

2 1 1 1 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

IPass

WeRoam

Swiss

comH

ospitality

Boing

o

TMobileEU

Orange

CAR

CoordinateTechnologies

Swiss

com

TMobile

N

umberofmarketsserved

82

20

16 12 12

2 1 1 1 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

IPass

WeRoam

Swiss

comH

ospitality

Boing

o

TMobileEU

Orange

CAR

CoordinateTechnologies

Swiss

com

TMobile

N

umberofmarketsserved

Source: Ovum / Orange

Today, activation is required if Oranges customers wish to roam on Wi-Fi,

although this is activated for free. This is done to prevent bill shock. Consumers

and business customers on both big-screen and small-screen devices are able to

use the service. However, the service is not available as part of a bundle, even for

business customers. Business customers must pay for an additional option,

although they do get the additional benefit of SLAs. As a result, prepaid access is

the most common form of access. Prices are 12 per hour on Oranges Wi-Fi

roaming partners, except in Sweden where it is 15 per hour on TeliaSonera. All

rates are charged per second. In line with EC regulation, customers receive a text

alert if their consumption exceeds 50.

Clearly, even Orange, which is taking a leading role in this area, has much work to

do to make the price of Wi-Fi roaming truly attractive. However, pricing is not the

only barrier. The aforementioned issue of authentication and standardization of

that process is exacerbated in the roaming situation. Therefore, truly seamless

connectivity, as in domestic markets, is unlikely in the short term. Furthermore,

previous efforts to bring Wi-Fi into existing cellular roaming frameworks have come

to nothing. Nonetheless, the standard initiatives discussed should help some of the

larger Wi-Fi roaming partners to more easily integrate their offers to mobile

operator Wi-Fi-specific content



23/27

22 of 26



Another area where Wi-Fi could offer new opportunities to operators is in deliveringcontent. AT&T currently offers stadium-specific content in San Francisco via its Wi-

Fi network. Orange partners with Sony so that PSP owners can download free

content, such as games, from hotspots. Its Orange World video service is also

accessible through hotspots.

In this way, both Orange and AT&T are adding additional value to the Wi-Fi

network. Moreover, the content is delivered in partnership with the hotspot owners,

thereby attracting users with free value-added content for which the operator does

not necessarily have to pay. However, it is no surprise that both players are large,

established Wi-Fi players. The Wi-Fi network needs to have sufficient reach and be

available from a sufficient number of partners to be viable. Again, the opportunity

is viable if Wi-Fi is an existing asset or readily and cheaply available. If not,

focusing on cellular could well be a more cost-effective use of capital.

Wi-Fi case study: AT&T

Wi-Fi at the heart of wireless data strategy

The growth of mobile data traffic at AT&T is well documented, as are the network

travails that resulted. As a result, AT&Ts approach to its network has been what it

terms a wireless broadband network, which consists of both 3G and Wi-Fi. This

highlights the importance AT&T places on integrating Wi-Fi assets into the widernetwork and ensuring that both mobile and Wi-Fi networks work together

seamlessly.

AT&T is one of many incumbents around the world that has been involved in Wi-Fi

for a long time. However, it freely admits that although it was confident that Wi-Fi

had something to offer the market, it had never been able to find a clearly

definable use for it until today. Alongside the rising demand for mobile data, the

key driver for Wi-Fi for AT&T was the availability of Wi-Fi in a growing array of

devices. This includes both smartphones and a growing range of consumer

electronics devices in general, such as e-readers, cameras, and netbooks. In 1Q10

smartphones and integrated devices accounted for 69% of AT&Ts Wi-Fi

connections (i.e. sessions connected via Wi-Fi), up from 35% in 1Q09. Theremainder of connections are contributed by laptops.

Moving forward, AT&T believes that Wi-Fi will remain a key component of its

network strategy. In five years time it expects Wi-Fi usage to be of a similar type

to today, albeit with more hotspots and more Wi-Fi-enabled devices. This is in

spite of AT&T planning to launch an LTE network in this timeframe. It views LTE as

a sufficient upgrade of the wide area wireless network, but Wi-Fi is highlighted as a

key ingredient to supplement its indoor coverage strategy.

This is perhaps a damning indictment of AT&Ts recently launched femtocell, but

the key difference is where the two solutions are targeted. Femtocells are very

much a residential solution, whereas AT&T is at pains to stress that Wi-Fi is placedwhere people want to go outside the home, such as cafes and restaurants.



24/27

23 of 26



Moreover, there is even potential for the two solutions to be deployed in parallel inthe future. A Wi-Fi hotspot integrated with a femtocell could boost indoor cellular

coverage in AT&T's hotspot portfolio, meaning that even traffic from devices that

are not Wi-Fi-enabled could be offloaded.

An interesting perspective on the future evolution of public access Wi-Fi is AT&Ts

belief that it can leverage the opportunity for location-specific content. A pointer to

this development is visible today at the AT&T Park stadium in San Francisco. The

San Francisco Giants football team delivers rights-protected content over Wi-Fi,

such as instant replays that can not be shown outside the ground. Such value-

added services have potential, although we dont believe that they will usurp the

main benefit of Wi-Fi: that of offloading traffic for operators and boosting

performance for end users.

Seamless handover is critical

One of the most striking aspects of AT&Ts Wi-Fi strategy is the importance of

seamless handover. This is imperative to improve the customer experience beyond

the fiddly set-up of manually switching the Wi-Fi radio on, scanning for hotspots,

selecting favorites, and entering login details.

The benefits of making the customer experience as simple as possible are clear in

AT&Ts usage statistics. As shown in Figure 6, when a fully automated Wi-Fi/3G

management client became available in June 2009, the boost it provided for Wi-Fi

usage in 3Q09 is clearly evident. 3Q09 alone saw as many connections as the

entire first half of 2009 combined, as well as the whole of 2008.



25/27

24 of 26



Figure 6 Number and quarter-on-quarter growth of connections made toAT&T Wi-Fi hotspots, 2008-2010

3.4 3.75.2

7.4

10.7

15.0

25.4

35.3

53.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Quarter-on-qu

arterchange(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NumberofWi-Fic

onnections(millions)

Quarter-on-quarter change (%) Number of Wi-Fi connections (millions)

3.4

3.75.2

7.4

10.7

15.0

25.4

35.3

53.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Quarter-on-qu

arterchange(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NumberofWi-Fic

onnections(millions)

Quarter-on-quarter change (%) Number of Wi-Fi connections (millions)

Source: AT&T

Prior to June 2009, the client was semi-manual. When a customer entered Wi-Fi

coverage they received a text message asking whether they would like to connect.

If they replied yes then the device was connected. The automated client auto-

authenticates the user, as well as managing seamless handover between the radio

access network and Wi-Fi, even if the user is in the middle of a data session. AT&T

uses the device manufacturer to install the client in order to ensure the tight

integration of the client into the devices. By April 2010, the client was available on

AT&Ts BlackBerry, iPhone, Android, Symbian, and Windows Seven portfolio.

Bundling encourages uptake

In addition to a technical solution that enables seamless handover from the 3G to

Wi-Fi network, AT&T has also placed a great deal of emphasis on ensuring that its

commercial propositions are aligned. As such, many of its fixed and mobile tariffs

include Wi-Fi access by default. This removes any cost barrier for the end user,

which is important given that it is the operator seeking to offload traffic and boost

the end-user experience.

Wi-Fi is available for free to all consumer and enterprise smartphone users on

unlimited plans; all big-screen customers on LaptopConnect plans worth $59.99

per month or more; and all fixed broadband users. Even customers outside of



26/27

25 of 26



these plans can access Wi-Fi at a hotspot for $3.99 per session. In 1Q10, Wi-Fiwas included to nearly 32 million AT&T customers, across fixed broadband and big-

screen and small-screen mobile broadband.

Scale provides the springboard for success

Another key platform for AT&T to successfully utilize Wi-Fi is the scale of its Wi-Fi

network. In 1Q10 it owned 20,000 hotspots in the US. Crucially, many of these are

in strategically important places where smartphone or laptop users are likely to

congregate. These include coffee shops, such as Starbucks, restaurant chains such

as McDonalds, hotels, sports stadiums, and universities (AT&T covers 110 buildings

at the University of South Carolina and 23 campuses for Pennsylvania State

University).

This scale also creates a virtuous circle for AT&T as it seeks to expand its footprint

further. AT&Ts ability to market the location of its Wi-Fi hotspots to 100 million

fixed and mobile customers means that a Wi-Fi supply contract with AT&T can

bring additional marketing muscle. This can help attract new Wi-Fi contracts to

AT&T, which in turn provides even more locations where data traffic can be

offloaded. The business model for providing Wi-Fi access at a venue is variable, but

generally involves AT&T covering all of the customers sites with access to end

users either free or chargeable, depending on the customers needs.

Still scope to expand roaming opportunity

Through partners including iPass and WiRoam, AT&T had a global footprint of over

125,000 hotspots in 1Q10, including its domestic network. However, it concedes

that today international Wi-Fi access is mainly a business proposition. This is

probably due to the $19.99 per month fee, which also includes domestic access.

Given the bundling of Wi-Fi access in so many of AT&Ts plans this will be

unattractive to users that need to roam only once or twice a year.

However, we believe that there is an opportunity for AT&T to leverage the

prominence of Wi-Fi in its domestic marketing. Mobile data roaming is generally

prohibitively expensive, yet finding and connecting to Wi-Fi hotspots abroad can be

troublesome. Therefore, as users are aware of AT&Ts role as a Wi-Fi provider in itsdomestic market, it has the potential to establish a strong Wi-Fi roaming offering.

Seamless handover will no doubt be incredibly difficult to achieve and AT&T will be

bound by the local Wi-Fi operators rules as to what content and applications can

be used. Nonetheless, the demand for users wishing to use their smartphones

abroad offers considerable revenue generating potential, which is currently stymied

by high mobile data roaming costs. A sign that such thinking is taking place at

AT&T is evident in the fact that AT&Ts Mobility Global Alliance team now handles

Wi-Fi agreements as well as GSM. Therefore, a mechanism is already in place to

make the international experience as close to that in the US.

Ovum does not endorse companies or their products. Ovum operates under an Independence

Charter. For full details please see www.ovum.com/about/charter.asp.



27/27

26 of 26



For full details of Ovum's citation policy, see www.ovum.com/media/citation.asp.

Whilst every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this

material, the facts, estimates and opinions stated are based on information and sources

which, while we believe them to be reliable, are not guaranteed. In particular, it should not

be relied upon as the sole source of reference in relation to the subject matter. No liability

can be accepted by Ovum Europe Limited, its directors or employees for any loss occasioned

to any person or entity acting or failing to act as a result of anything contained in or omitted

from the content of this material, or our conclusions as stated. The findings are Ovum's

current opinions; they are subject to change without notice. Ovum has no obligation to

update or amend the research or to let anyone know if our opinions change materially.


OVUM_, The Role of Public Access Wi-FI in Mobile Operator Strategy (2010)

Documents

Transcript of OVUM_, The Role of Public Access Wi-FI in Mobile Operator Strategy (2010)