UK: Telecommunications Predictions, TMT Trends 2009 - Part Two

This article is part of a series: Click Telecommunications Predictions, TMT Trends 2009 - Part One for the previous article.
To read Part One of this article please click here

Farewell Mobile Phone, Welcome The Wireless Device

The first mobile phones were a triumph of technology. The ability to make and receive phone calls, seemingly out of thin air, was and still is a marvel of scientific progress.

But, by today's standards, they now appear remarkably simple. The first phones supported a single wireless technology, cellular mobile, which allowed phones to connect with base stations that could be up to 30 kilometers away52.

Since then, the mobile phone has steadily added communications technologies. Infrared, first incorporated in the mid-1990s, enabled short-range connections, typically with computers53. Bluetooth, popularized at the end of the 1990s, enabled phones to connect with a range of devices within a 30-meter radius54.

In this decade, the number of connectivity options has steadily grown.

In 2009, for the first time, single wafer chipsets will be available with five or more separate wireless technologies (see Figure 1), offering combinations of short-, mid- and long-range communications, and carrying both voice and data.

This is significant for two reasons. First, it means that the 'mobile' phone has evolved from being a device dedicated to cellular mobile networks, into a truly wireless device, capable of working with many distinct networks, each possibly owned by different entities.

Second, a single chipset enables lower prices. In 2009, the cost of chipsets providing multiple wireless technologies is likely to drop below $2, and may even approach just $1. By contrast, the first standalone Bluetooth chips sold for almost $2055. The cost of similar technology, but spread over multiple chipsets, would be considerably higher, in the region of $10.

The economic downturn is likely to make the mobile-phone market turbulent for chip-makers56. But the growing range of multi-radio chips may cause demand to grow in many other segments, from PCs to hi-fis, clothing57 to memory sticks.

Bottom line

All players in the mobile industry should understand how they are affected, for better or worse, by the emergence of the low-cost, multiple-standard chipset.

For mobile operators and device manufactures, a key implication of the falling price of the chipset is that the business case for the integration of wireless technology into a range of devices, not just voice-centered mobile phones, may be far stronger. The industry should consider which devices could now benefit from having multiple wireless standards built in. Laptop computers are increasingly being sold with integrated wireless connectivity58.

But if chipsets become available at $2, other candidates now range from:

  • traffic signals, which could be re-programmed over-the-air.
  • remote controls, which could be used to record viewing habits, with the data being transmitted via a local wireless LAN connection or via cellular memory sticks, which could exchange data with devices via wireless connections, rather than requiring a USB port.
  • clothing, which could capture health information and send this back to a remote monitoring facility.

Mobile operators should consider their positioning. They should determine whether to remain focused on the provision of long-range cellular mobile standards, or whether to become aggregators of multiple wireless standards. Operators should also understand how they can monetize the proliferation of wireless technology, particularly if they are subsidizing its inclusion in the phones offered to their customers. Operators should consider how to route customers' data traffic, particularly large files, so as to minimize carriage costs59.

Companies in other sectors should consider what low-cost integrated chipsets could enable. Integration of wireless technologies could change, profoundly, the ways in which a device can be used. For example, a television remote control could be transformed: with long-range communication integrated into the remote, its uses could include anything from voting in televised talent shows, to sending data on the owner's viewing patterns back to viewing monitoring bureaux.

The Mobile Broadband Accident In Slow Motion

Broadband was one of the fastest growing services for mobile operators in 2008. Customers were eager to take up a service that promised download speeds competitive with many fixed broadband offerings. Operators were keen to promote a service that could increase subscriber numbers and generate much needed data revenues.

Global sales of mobile broadband 'dongles' exceeded four million per month during 200860, and are expected to more than double during 200961. Additionally, most major PC vendors now sell models with integrated mobile broadband connectivity62. While their penetration levels are currently low, falling prices are expected to drive strong growth63.

If demand for mobile broadband remains strong, the resultant stress on networks, particularly backhaul connections, could be severe64. A typical mobile network backhaul connection is a 2MBit/s for a leased line: mobile broadband services have advertised maximum speeds of up to 7.2MBit/s. To bridge this gap, and increase capacity to accommodate the growing number of users, operators may collectively have to spend tens of billions of dollars65. Backhaul typically represents 30 percent of a mobile operator's operating costs and, worldwide, operators spend an estimated $20 billion per annum on leased lines alone66 67.

In light of these costs, and the proliferation of all-youcan- eat data tariffs, operators may face a similar fate to fixed broadband providers: an inability to monetize rapidly growing data volume. Data now exceeds voice volume on some mobile networks68, and with data traffic growing by several hundred percent on others69, the cost of carrying data traffic could rapidly erode margins. A single mobile broadband user can consume as much capacity as 1,000 voice callers70 – yet the implied revenue that data traffic generates is between a fraction of a cent and two cents a megabyte, whereas voice is charged at the equivalent of around 60 cents per megabyte71 72.

In countries with the highest levels of mobile broadband penetration, operators may encounter a subsequent, expensive choke point in the radio-access network, possibly requiring the purchase of more spectrum73.

Bottom line

As mobile broadband penetration rises, mobile operators are likely to have to balance customer satisfaction, diversification, profits and investment levels with the management of traffic loads.

Where possible, operators should try to divert heavy data traffic from cellular networks, and route it via other networks, such as WiFi-hotspots or home-broadband connections74. Data tariffs should be structured to encourage customers to use these types of connectivity. Where no viable alternative networks exist, operators should build out capacity as fast as possible to avoid a deteriorating user experience.

Either way, operators should focus marketing attention on managing customer expectations. The gap between advertised maximum and achieved speeds may well grow in the short term. Operators should be wary of one of the emerging consequences of overpromising and underdelivering: litigation75.

Operators should examine the business model for mobile broadband carefully. Given that network capital and operating expenditures are likely to have to rise, retail offerings based on subsidized PCs and all-you-can-eat tariffs may not be sustainable in the longer term. Evidence from the voice market suggests that consumers are reasonably happy to pay a premium in return for the convenience of mobility.

Operators should develop software to ensure that devices automatically select the best connection available per application. Cellular networks remain fine for voice, but should remain the bandwidth of last resort for heavy data applications. Operators should also revisit network sharing as a means of limiting upgrade costs, while maximizing coverage. Forming network-sharing agreements in the short term may also help to reduce the cost of acquiring additional spectrum in the medium term. Dongle manufacturers should monitor the market closely. PC manufacturers are increasingly integrating mobile broadband connectivity into their devices – removing the need for a USB dongle. Diversification may soon be necessary.

Consumers should subscribe to mobile broadband services with a clear understanding of their strengths and limitations. Mobile broadband is an excellent supplement to fixed broadband, but for the time being for some customers, maybe an inadequate replacement for it.

Enterprises deploying applications on the back of mobile broadband, from field-force enablement to connectivity for workers on client site, should monitor the performance carefully. Concentrations of workers, for example those working in a project room, may well end up competing for the same bandwidth. Download and upload speeds may vary considerably both between countries and within countries.

The Third Screen Goes Dark: Mobile Television Loses Its Reception

Continued economic strife in 2009 may accelerate the temporary demise, in some regions, of the mobile industry's most talked about service this decade, mobile television.

A combination of factors may weigh against mobile television, which has been positioned by its advocates as the third screen.

Lower liquidity and a focus on cash may make it unlikely that investments in broadcast systems, such as DVB-H and mobile television systems based on existing 3G infrastructure, would be approved76. Lower handset subsidies77 may mean fewer high-end phones capable of supporting mobile television coming into the market. Lower media sector revenues suggest a greater reluctance from the creative sector to experiment with new media formats78. Depressed consumer confidence is likely to make consumers less likely to spend on add-ons to their mobile subscriptions79. Advertisers, who tend to regard mobile as an experimental format, may decide to focus funds only on media formats that have previously been successful80.

Furthermore, the performance of mobile television was disappointing in 2008. Major sporting events, which can be a catalyst for the adoption of new media formats, largely failed to launch mobile television. While two-thirds of the world's population watched the Beijing Olympics on television81, there was scant demand for the event via mobile television82.

The creation of mobile-specific content also failed to make an impression, aside from that on the bottom line. Customized content in some cases attracted audiences measured in the hundreds83, in markets where conventional television could attract millions.

This bundle of challenges is likely to reduce new deployment of mobile television services around the world to a trickle. It may also accelerate the switch-off of many existing services.

Essentially, mobile television may simply no longer receive the benefit of the doubt. In 2009, therefore, five times more mobile television services may be closed than those launched84. Subscriber numbers may fail to reach even the bottom range of analysts' forecasts: mobile television's total global audience may fall short of 30 million85.

Fee-based services, such as those offered by many European operators, may fail to gain traction, and so be closed off. Advertising-funded services, such as those in South Korea and Japan, may continue to endure disappointing levels of adoption and usage, and might fail to break even.

There will not be a complete fiasco for the third screen in 2009. One of the few examples of popular demand for mobile television in 2008 was for analog mobile television handsets, complete with meter-long aerials. Users of these devices, which are essentially equivalent to portable LCD televisions, may outnumber digital mobile television subscribers by over two-to-one86.

Bottom line

Everyone involved in the mobile television industry, whether an operator, a handset developer or a creative, should take a long, hard, look at the demand for mobile television so far. The downturn could be a perfect opportunity to call time on a format that has too many fundamental challenges to work.

But that does not mean that there is no space for mobile phones in the television market.

Mobile may be unsuitable for viewing television programs, but it is potentially an ideal medium for enhancing consumers' terrestrial television experience. Mobile telephony could provide an efficient payment mechanism for VOD – delivered to the set top box at home – particularly for smaller VOD players. Mobile phones can also be used to control the DVR. Television broadcasters can use mobile as part of their CRM strategies. Individuals could be sent reminders of the start of a new series of a favorite program, or be informed of the launch of a major new box-set. And the mobile phone has been well used as a means of voting on the outcome of some television programs.

The mobile phone could end up as the broadcasters' best friend.

One For All And All For One: Fiber Networks Change The Shape Of Competition

Liberalization of the world's telecommunications markets has mostly been based on the premise of full, infrastructure-based competition, offering customers a choice between competing networks.

In 2009, as pressure mounts on fixed operators to upgrade aging copper networks to fiber, the continuing viability of infrastructure-based competition is likely to be debated.

Fiber's many benefits include almost limitless bandwidth and low operating costs. But this comes at a steep price. Connecting an average household with fiber in a country with a combination of city and rural households can cost $1,000. In some of the business cases undertaken, the return on investment expected may not justify the cost87.

Infrastructure-based competition can benefit consumers, but it could also be claimed that this results in large-scale, possibly wasteful, duplication of assets. Currently, incumbent fixed operators' copper networks typically compete with multiple cable and fixed-broadband networks. There are on average four competing mobile networks in each of the world's 50 largest economies88. In the past, the availability of inexpensive financing combined with rapid subscriber and revenue growth had made duplicate networks viable.

But 2009 is likely to be characterized by illiquidity, risk aversion and reduced consumer spending. Within this context, deploying multiple fiber networks, which could cost hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide89, may appear increasingly unfeasible.

As a result, 2009 may see a fundamental change of ideology, perhaps similar to the shift in opinion on national ownership of parts of the financial sector90. Regulators may determine that the fiber connectivity market is not sovereign, and that the case for a single network, with shared ownership and open access, might be the best way forward.

Following a model already used in Asia Pacific91, governments may start issuing tender requests or licenses for single fiber network deployment. The majority of responses to these are likely to come from consortia, rather than individual companies. Though many consortia may include, or be led by, fixed-line incumbents, erstwhile competitors may now become consortium partners.

Governments may encourage greater private-sector involvement via a combination of: guaranteed wholesale access, relaxed pricing regulations, tax breaks and subsidies92. Their objective is likely to be to accelerate the deployment of fiber, which some governments regard as an issue of national competitiveness.

Though this 'structural separation' approach is likely to catalyze fiber deployment, telecommunications operators may still struggle to make the business case add up. During 2008, average monthly line rental for fiber broadband fell by over 6.5 percent93. Fiber's $10 price premium over DSL94 is likely to erode. In some markets, there is no premium95. And operators may find that during 2009 and beyond, there may be few if any services that require the sort of capacity that fiber can offer.

Bottom line

Moving away from infrastructure-based competition would have a fundamental impact on the dynamics of the industry.

Telecommunications operators should be aware of the challenges, as well as the opportunities, that this could imply. Shared ownership may reduce fiber's cost and risk, but may also require a new, unfamiliar approach to competition. Companies should determine which skills they may need to hire to be able to compete on the basis of services, or service levels, alone.

They should also consider the partnerships they may need to create demand that could take advantage of fiber's capacity96. Triple-play service alone may not provide the return on investment to justify fiber's deployment, even on a single network basis. Operators should work with a range of entities from content creators, to financial institutions, to cloud computing firms, to understand how fiber networks could enable better processes, access to new clients, or brand new business models.

Companies should also examine the wholesale markets: these may yield shorter-term revenues and higher margins. Fiber could help mobile operators deal with their backhaul bottleneck97.

Telecommunications companies and consortia should work with governments to agree ways of limiting, or at least phasing, deployment costs. Fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) or street-side cabinets may provide more than enough capacity for consumer and small business broadband, at a quarter of the cost of fiber-to-the-home (FTTH)98.

Media companies should devise strategies to utilize fiber. Fiber's symmetric nature may make peer-to-peer content distribution more effective99. However, fiber's bandwidth may also catalyze illegal file-sharing.

Governments should complement their commitment to fiber deployment with campaigns to encourage adoption, for example by making the use of e-government for certain procedures, such as filing tax returns, mandatory. Governments should also look at how a fiber network could improve its own processes.

It may also be opportune to review the mix of a country's graduates to determine what skills would be required to enable deployment of a fiber network, and the development of applications that could exploit such a resource. Balancing educational grants towards science and business could encourage students to pursue courses that could plug any skills deficiencies identified.

Mobile Termination Rates In Europe: A Cut Too Far Or A Cut Too Fast?

Ten cents per minute is the average charge for connecting a call to a mobile phone in Europe. One cent is the typical fee for connecting a call to a fixed line100. That differential of nine cents is likely to become the subject of heated debate in 2009 and winners and losers may be defined by the rate at which it declines.

Mobile termination rates (MTR) have historically been higher than equivalent fixed charges. Mobile operators have pointed to the cost of building and maintaining mobile networks as justification101. During 2008 in Europe, the spread of MTRs was between $0.03 and $0.24 per minute102. Operators argued that this variance is due to local costs such as licenses, labor and financing. The European Commission (EC) has had a different view.

In June 2008 the Commission recommended that the cost asymmetry between individual operators be removed. It also recommended that the asymmetry between mobile and fixed be reduced. It recommended that MTRs should fall by 70 percent over three years103, towards €0.01-€0.02 per minute; much closer to the rate charged by fixed operators.

Compliances with the EC's recommendations could oblige some operators to make substantial changes to business models and tariffs, or even revise financial performance targets downwards104.

Prepaid customers in Europe may be among the losers105. They typically make few outbound calls, but are worthy clients in that they generate termination revenues from inbound calls. Lower MTRs could mean some prepay customers make losses, unless prepaid tariffs rise and handset subsidies fall106. But increased cost of ownership may make mobile too expensive for some prepay customers107.

If operators lose prepaid customers or are unable to compensate with growth elsewhere, the financial performance gap versus peers in emerging markets could increase. European operators' EBITDA margins average 35 percent. Margins of over 40 percent are common among operators in emerging markets108. Regulatory intervention has already been blamed for a drop of 2 percentage points in European operators' investment109. Intervention on MTRs could exacerbate that trend110.

Mobile operators have already acknowledged that MTRs must decline. But 2009 is likely to see them push for a less drastic descent than the EC proposes.

Bottom line

Mobile operators likely to be adversely affected by MTR cuts should suggest alternative approaches to the EC's proposals. They could, for example, recommend a glide-path approach, in which MTRs decline predictably. Even by this method, MTR declines are likely to accelerate, and operators must carefully model the impact on revenues and profitability. They should determine how data services could offset the falling voice revenues resulting from lower MTRs.

Operators should avoid overstating the impact of MTR cuts. Exaggerated claims may not help negotiations with the European Union, and may heighten the concerns of investors. They should focus on demonstrating that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to European MTR regulation may be inappropriate and potentially damaging.

Mobile operators who stand to gain from MTR cuts, that is, those who pay more to competitors than they receive, should consider the broader impact on the mobile industry. Consumers are likely to expect lower bills from all operators.

Consumer groups should monitor progress carefully. Operators' knee-jerk reactions to sudden cuts could disadvantage millions of consumers, particularly those on low incomes. It may be better to call for a more moderate approach, from both operators and regulators.

Local regulators should develop MTR glide paths that respect operators' costs and market conditions. Any break from cost-oriented MTR pricing requires detailed economic justification. Regulators should pursue rapid agreement with operators on MTR reductions, and make such agreements public. The EC may be less inclined to pursue the matter if progress is swift.

Footnotes

52. See: http://www.cellular.co.za/celltech.htm

53. For more information, see: How Infrared Technology Works – http://www.smartcomputing.com/articles/archive/r0403/30r03/30r03.pdf?guid=

54. For more information, see: How Bluetooth technology works – http://www.mobileinfo.com/bluetooth/how_works.htm

55. Bluetooth takes steps forward, Comms Design, September 2000.

56. Cell phone chip stocks decline, Cell Phone News, 5 November 2008.

57. Wireless technology, particularly Bluetooth, has been integrated into a variety of wearable products including jackets, motorcycle helmets and sunglasses. See: 2008 marks 10 years of Bluetooth wireless technology, Reuters, 7 January 2008; Newer technologies such as Low Energy Bluetooth may allow for more widespread integration of connectivity, as standby time can theoretically be measurable in years. See: Bluetooth demo proves low-energy technology, Electronics Talk, 10 July 2008. Current and potential applications within clothing could include health monitoring, sports performance monitoring, gaming and presence (informing other devices, such as cars, computers or entertainment equipment, that the wearer is nearby, and adapting settings accordingly). For more information, see: Future dress code: very smart, CNN, 26 February 2007.

58. Lenovo, Vodafone and Ericsson bring down cost of integrated laptop mobile broadband, Computer Weekly, 16 July 2008.

59. Mobile calls to be routed via broadband, The Times, 11 February 2008.

60. Global HSPA subscriptions hit 50 million, GSM Association, 22 August 2008.

61. Broadband network infrastructure, Ericsson, 1 April 2008.

62. HSPA Broadband Europe, Berg Insight, 2008. See: http://www.berginsight.com/ReportPDF/ProductSheet/bi-hmbeu-ps.pdf

63. GSMA partners with industry giants on mobile broadband, Mobile Marketer, 3 October 2008.

64. The mobile broadband boom heralds changes in the UK mobile market, Analysys Mason, 19 August 2008.

65. Beating the backhaul challenge in mobile, Amdocs, 2008. See: http://amdocs-oss-central.com/pdf/2008-06-25Beating_the_Backhaul_Challenge_in_Mobile.pdf. There are approaching 2.3 million mobile network masts around the world, and the number of masts is expected to grow by almost an additional one million by the end of 2009, partly because of the additional network density required to provide mobile broadband services on higher frequencies. Two-thirds of cell masts are shared with more than one operator having radio access equipment on them, thus increasing the backhaul requirement of each. Operators are expected to double the capital expenditure on new backhaul infrastructure, typically microwave links, from $14 billion to over $23 billion by 2012. At the same time, fixed backhaul costs – the amount mobile operators pay to fixed operators to carry traffic from cell sites back to their core networks – are expected to rise sharply due to the strong growth in data traffic volume. One estimate suggests that in the United States alone, fixed backhaul costs will rise from around $2 billion in 2006 to over $16 billion by the end of 2009. However, all of this expense is unlikely to be met by rising revenues. Mobile voice and data revenues per connection are expected to remain flat at best, but may even decline due to aggressive price competition in many markets. For more information, see: Covering your backhaul, Telecom Redux, 29 February 2008.

66. Cutting wireless backhaul costs with multiservice switching, Nortel, 2008. See: http://www.nortel.com/products/01/passport/wan/p7400s/collateral/wireless_backhaul_factsheet0205.pdf

67. Cambridge broadband networks spur debate across industry, Comms Business, 29 June 2008.

68. The mobile broadband boom heralds changes in the UK mobile market, Analysys Mason, 19 August 2008.

69. Ibid.

70. Will the 3G iPhone break the network?, Basestation Newsletter, July 2008.

71. H3G H1 2008 Results and datacard economics, Enders Analysis, 2 September 2008.

72. Exchange rate at 26 November 2008, see: www.xe.com

73. The mobile broadband boom heralds changes in the UK mobile market, Analysys Mason, 19 August 2008.

74. T-Mobile recently announced that all of its customers on UK Web'n'walk Pro and Web'n'walk Plus tariffs would have access to the company's network of WiFi hotspots. See: T-Mobile UK bundles free WiFi with Web'n'walk plus and pro plans, Into Mobile, 12 January 2008.

75. Apple has been targeted by a US litigant because the iPhone 3G's marketing claimed the product was "twice as fast" as its 2G predecessor. See: Class action suit claims Apple deceived over iPhone 3G speeds, Apple Insider, 20 August 2008.

76. Mobile TV is not easy, EE Times India, 11 September 2008.

77. Orange is keen to follow O2's handset subsidy cuts, Mobile Today, 7 August 2008.

78. News Corp chief flags media job cuts, WA Today, 6 November 2008.

79. Downturn to hit mobile spend, poll finds, Mobile Marketing, 30 October 2008.

80. Pre-roll solutions, New Media Age, 23 October 2008.

81. Beijing Olympics draws 4.7 billion television viewers, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 5 September 2008.

82. For example, research suggests that 436,000 UK mobile phone subscribers watched the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics on their phones. See: Olympics boosts mobile TV, Mobile Marketing, 26 August 2008. However, the total number of UK mobile TV subscribers has fallen since 2006, when it peaked at around 450,000. See: Television is a turnoff for mobile users, The Guardian, 2 August 2007.

83. BBC's mobile TV trial peaks at 580 viewers a day, New Media Age, 28 July 2008.

84. Also see: Ongoing fall in viewer retention overshadows 36% mobile TV growth, Tellabs, 12 February 2008.

85. Based on: An EU Strategy for Mobile TV, Europa, 18 July 2008.

86. Telegent enables free mobile TV access, Total Telecom, 16 July 2008.

87. In the United Kingdom, 50% of customers are happy with 8Mbit/s connections or slower. See: UK fat pipes sluggish from lack of fiber, Silicon.com, 30 September 2008.

88. Based on data from the GSM Association. See: http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statistics/networks.shtml

89. European Broadband Matrix Q3 2008, Merrill Lynch, 2 September 2008.

90. For example, see: Intervention is bold, but has a basis in history, The New York Times, 13 October 2008; Is nationalization the answer to banks behaving badly, Financial Times, 13 October 2008; Portugal to nationalize local bank, Financial Times, 8 November 2008.

91. The future of fiber access, Light Reading, 5 November 2008.

92. Ibid.

93. Consumers worldwide getting a better deal on broadband, Point Topic, 5 November 2008.

94. Ibid.

95. Fiber in France, Enders Analysis, February 2008.

96. Ultra-fast Internet is lagging in United Kingdom, Forbes, 28 March 2008.

97. Breaking the backhaul bottleneck, Telecommunications, 10 March 2008.

98. 'Fiber to the home' a must-have only government can provide, The Age, 15 August 2008.

99. Ultra-fast Internet is lagging in United Kingdom, Forbes, 28 March 2008.

100. European wireless matrix, Merrill Lynch, 9 April 2008; Currency conversion correct on 15 December 2008 at www.xe.com

101. ETNO reflection document on termination rates, European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association, April 2008.

102. Mobile giants' £80bn nuisance call, The Independent, 27 June 2008; Currency conversion correct on 15 December 2008 at www.xe.com

103. Telecoms sector shaken by planned EU mobile fee cuts, EurActiv, 27 June 2008.

104. The exact impact of MTR cuts varies by operator, and is linked to market share. Small operators may typically benefit from MTR cuts. For an operator with around 10 percent market share, outbound calls to other mobile networks typically dominate (subscribers making outbound calls to mobile numbers are more likely to call subscribers on other networks). Therefore payments to other mobile operators are normally greater than revenues received. But operators with larger market shares often receive more MTR termination than they pay out, because inbound call volumes are higher than outbound. See: Mobile giants' £80bn nuisance call, The Independent, 27 June 2008.

105. Mobile giants' £80 billion nuisance call, The Independent, 27 June 2008.

106. Ibid.

107. Ibid.

108. Global wireless matrix, Merrill Lynch, 25 September 2008.

109. Telecoms sector shaken by planned EU mobile fee cuts, EurActiv, 27 June 2008.

110. Mobile operators warn EC over termination rate cuts, ZDNet, 1 July 2008.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

This article is part of a series: Click Telecommunications Predictions, TMT Trends 2009 - Part One for the previous article.
Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions