SMS Consortium

SMS Consortium SMS Consortium is a Global Telecommunication Service Provider with offices in USA, India, and Israel

SMS Consortium LLC is the parent company of SMS Telecomm and group of companies with offices in USA, India, and Israel. SMS Consortium is a Global Telecommunication Service Provider. Established in 2009, to manage the group’s retail traffic, SMS has come a long way in establishing itself as one of the major players in the Wholesale and Retail Voice Industry. SMS Consortium is mainly focused on tra

ding on the directs to key destinations in Latin American, Africa and Asia as well as Middle East and Europe. Today SMS Consortium is partnered with Major Carriers and Switch Providers in the market offering wholesale and retail voice services, thereby catering to the needs and demands of our strong customer base.

11/21/2013

Infrastructure Peering
The US Fiber Gap
By Hunter Newby, CEO | November 04, 2013
1
inShare

There seems to be little to no argument left around the need for fiber-based networking around the world. Even the mobile network operators prefer fiber for their wireless backhaul. Beyond the enlightenment of the need, though, there still seems to be some lingering haze around the state of dark fiber availability throughout the United States.

To be clear, not all fiber is, or was, created equal here in this country. Much of the fiber outside of a few major metros and fewer lower-tier cities is carrier-owned and therefore not readily available for lease, or IRU on any terms let alone reasonable ones. This is just a matter of course for carriers that do not wish to enable their competitors with the same benefit of control of fiber from their own inventory. Therein lies a conundrum.

Aside from an outright acquisition of a fiber-based network operator when leasing or buying dark fiber pairs, the only alternative is to build a new fiber route. The cost to build a new fiber route where one does not exist (to a tower, town, data center, office building, school, etc.) includes procuring rights of way that are typically costly, as are the time and materials expense of building a fiber cable and, or conduit/duct for a buried route and the placing of it. For long-haul routes, there is also the time and expense of building conditioned space for housing optical amplification equipment.

This effort and expense logically compels network planners to over-size the fiber cable since labor and rights of way are essentially fixed and the incremental cost of fiber pairs in a cable is not that much. The scenario does not make sense to the finance department though, as they would prefer just to lease or purchase only the amount of fiber the network needs for its own internal purposes and not have to build it from scratch. They also do not ultimately want to overbuild a fiber cable and be left with excess fiber that they are not willing to sell to competitors anyway. Therein lies another conundrum.

In addition to these conundrums there have been several years of dark fiber network mergers and acquisitions, consolidation and sales of fiber inventory that have now left the U.S in a state of fiber exhaust in many places in the country. In other places there is not any dark fiber at all as it has just simply not been built there yet, but now there is a need such as at a wireless tower. Add to that the fact that network operators do not wish to spend their own capital to build new. They would much prefer someone else to do it and they then just lease dark fiber from that provider. As a result, we have the great fiber standoff, or fiber gap, that we now face.

The U.S. lags behind most developed countries as far as Internet speed is concerned. Optical fiber facilities currently reach only 36.1 percent of U.S. commercial buildings, leaving the remaining 63.9 percent in the fiber gap.

Fiber Availability - % of Buildings with 20+ Employees

Source (News - Alert): Vertical Systems Group

Looking at the data from Vertical Systems Group it is evident that the fiber gap for commercial office buildings has closed a mere 25.2 percent since 2004, when the pe*******on rate was 10.9 percent, representing a compound annual growth rate of only 16.1 percent. At that rate, it will take another 18 years for the U.S. to reach 95 percent-plus fiber pe*******on to commercial office buildings.

“Direct fiber is clearly the preferred access technology for carrier Ethernet services, as well as for higher speed connectivity to IP VPNs, cloud-based applications and the Internet. Enterprise customers prefer direct fiber due to the benefits of scalability to multi-gigabit speeds plus lower bandwidth costs as compared to other access options,” says Rosemary Cochran of Vertical Systems Group.

The percentage of fiber pe*******on to wireless towers and tower sites is about the same in the U.S. with around 30 percent of the 300,000 towers and tower sites (antenna attachments to structures other than a tower, i.e. a building) in the U.S. having fiber access and the remainder having no fiber at all. Without an investment in new dark fiber the U.S. will simply not be able to grow at a rate to keep pace with the rest of the developed word. Given the statistics the need for increased fiber availability is clear and the only lingering haze is the fog of ignorance that blocks the view of those that still don’t get it.

Hunter Newby (News - Alert) is CEO of Allied Fiber (www.alliedfiber.com).

11/21/2013

Deep Dive
It's Prime Time to Monetize OTT Video
By Ken Osowski, Director of Solutions Marketing | November 04, 2013
1
inShare

Currently mobile video usage habits are more about viewing shorter length video content from sites such as YouTube (News - Alert) than renting longer TV episodes and feature-length movies, primarily because of data usage limits imposed by existing mobile data service plans. But the popularity of fixed network video streaming has created a broad diversity of licensed content accessible through cost-effective, monthly subscription services from Netflix, Hulu (News - Alert) and others that mobile device users in fact may already subscribe to. At the same time, mobile device manufacturers are introducing a wide range of mobile devices with even higher resolution screens and processing speeds that are capable of supporting the highest resolution video streaming available from these services.

For mobile operators, all of these factors combine to create challenges to overcome along with revenue opportunities to seize when looking to encourage OTT video usage. But this has to be achieved without operators breaking their networks, depleting the consumer’s bank account, providing a poor quality experience, or worse yet modifying the consumer’s behavior to only watch streamed video content on Wi-Fi access networks. The time for mobile operators to capitalize on mobile OTT video usage is now and so is the technology needed to make it happen.

Mobile subscribers want more granular video pricing models and content selection. This has been the key issue for consumers deciding to use OTT services in fixed line networks. Fixed line operators have traditionally created video service plans that bundle specific channels and premium content. OTT video services break this model and give consumers the choice to pay for what they like at a price they are willing to pay. Ultimately, this will put the subscribers in charge of deciding what mobile video services they will use, whether or not mobile network operators embrace it. While heavy users of mobile video are willing to consume video on mobile networks, current usage quotas are too low for extensive viewing.

Awareness of what is happening in their network is the first step for mobile network operators to understand OTT video usage in their network. Service planning should be centered initially around subscriber, device, location, and application awareness in the operator’s network, helping the marketing team understand mobile video usage characteristics and patterns that can help them to define service plans for which users would be willing to pay. Understanding the popular content providers, areas experiencing heaviest video usage, and video consumption across different service tiers are all critical to understand, and then optimize and monetize, OTT video.

Optimization is the next step, allowing mobile network operator to enhance users’ quality of service and quality of experience when streaming video to their mobile devices. This directly improves customer satisfaction and, ultimately, reduces churn rates. Traffic management, prioritization, video optimization, and congestion management techniques can be used to control bandwidth-intensive video streaming to improve the bandwidth per subscriber, application, device, service plans, and other traffic classifications.

At the heart of monetization is the paradigm shift from usage-based to value-based pricing service plans that encourage mobile OTT usage. This includes service-centric pricing that accounts for who, what, when, where, and how subscribers are using their OTT video subscriptions in the operator’s network. Value-based service plan pricing matches subscribers’ usage patterns to pricing based on what device(s) they are using, usage location, time of day, video-specific usage volumes, and video application prioritization. Because an approach too aggressive can limit monetization opportunities, detailed analytics to optimize pricing plans are critical to success.

Video content-aware services can be created to build incremental video service to the mobile operator’s base data plans, including:

zero-rated video plans;
time-of-day video prioritization or charging;
video bandwidth prioritization;
location-based video plans;
multiple video device shared data plan usage;
specific time-of-day and day-of-week video service plan options;
video QoS management;
incremental video specific service plan quotas; and
subscriber-specified video limits.

OTT video services can threaten a mobile operator’s service revenues and margins while OTT video content providers reap the benefits of the revenue they generate. Their video service pricing does not have to account for network costs since the mobile operator makes this investment. This puts a significant strain on the operator’s profit and loss statement since its network resources can be disproportionally consumed by video streaming when compared to its baseline data services without a tangible revenue offset. So unless mobile operators embrace and monetize OTT mobile video as a prime time strategy, OTT mobile video will remain a threat to their strained business models.

Ken Osowski (News - Alert) is director of solutions marketing at Procera Networks (www.proceranetworks.com).

11/21/2013

FCC E-Rate Overhaul Could Affect VoIP Eligibility
By TMCnet Special Guest
William B. Wilhelm and Jeffrey R. Strenkowski | November 04, 2013
0
inShare

On July 23, 2013, the FCC (News - Alert) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at updating the E-Rate program, which subsidizes communications service and technology purchases by schools and libraries. The NPRM proposes three overarching goals: ensuring schools and libraries have affordable access to 21st Century broadband that supports digital learning, maximizing the cost-effectiveness of E-rate funds, and streamlining the administration of the E-Rate program.

As part of its planned overhaul of the program, the FCC has requested comment on whether to phase out support for certain “outdated” services (i.e., paging, directory assistance, custom calling features, inside wiring maintenance, call blocking, text messaging), as well as other types of services such as e-mail, web hosting, basic maintenance of internal connections (BMIC), cellular data plans and air cards, and possibly all basic phone service.

Importantly, in light of its consideration of which types of services should be phased out, it also asks whether VoIP provides a viable alternative to public switched telephone service, whether the advent of increased broadband speeds in schools and libraries has made VoIP service a more cost-efficient and attractive way to receive voice services, and how the E-Rate rules can and should accommodate the needs of schools and libraries in areas without VoIP services, including some tribal lands. Alternatively, the FCC asks whether it should simply phase out funding for all voice services altogether, including VoIP service.

Thus, the FCC could: retain the status quo (retain eligibility for VoIP and non-VoIP voice services); reduce support for non-VoIP voice services (leaving VoIP eligible); or remove all voice services (including VoIP) from the E-Rate program. As such, the NPRM poses significant questions for VoIP providers that are providing services to E-Rate eligible institutions.

William B. Wilhelm (News - Alert) is a partner and Jeffrey R. Strenkowski is counsel at the global law firm of Bingham McCutchen LLP (www.bingham.com).

Address

1303 53rd Street
New York, NY
11219

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when SMS Consortium posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to SMS Consortium:

Share