Last week saw the publication of The European Broadband Scorecard, by Ofcom. The report, which looks at coverage, take-up, usage, price and choice of fixed and mobile broadband services in the UK, relative to other European countries, was originally proposed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to allow the Government to measure progress towards its ambition that the UK should have the best superfast broadband network of any major European country by 2015.

The Scorecard focuses on the UK's position within the five leading economies in Europe - the 'EU5' (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).

The report has found that the UK performs well among the major EU market. On all measures of coverage, take-up, usage, price and choice, it ranks between third and first across the EU5. Specifically, the report finds that the UK:

• has approximately the same fixed broadband take-up, at 32 connections per 100 people, as France and Germany (which have 33 and 35 connections per 100 people, respectively), and take-up in these three markets is considerably higher than in Italy and Spain;
• has the greatest number of fixed broadband connections per household, with a penetration rate of 77%
• is positioned third among the EU5 for superfast broadband coverage, slightly behind Germany and Spain but ahead of Italy and France in this very new market. In June 2012 superfast coverage had reached 65% of UK premises;
• has high mobile broadband take-up - the second highest in the EU5 with 64 connections per 100 people, narrowly behind Spain, with 65 connections per 100;
• has very wide internet usage - highest in the EU5, with 81% of individuals online on at least a weekly basis, and 71% having bought or ordered goods or services online in the past year;
• benefits from highly competitive broadband markets. The proportion of fixed lines operated by the incumbent (BT, with 31%) is the lowest in the EU5, while the market share of the largest mobile operator (EE, with 33%) is the joint lowest;
• has some of the lowest fixed and mobile broadband prices[1]. When assessing various measures of price, the UK leads the EU5 in eight metrics out of twelve.

Obviously, this is a fast changing picture. Coverage and take-up of superfast broadband has increased in the UK since much of the European-comparable data was collected. Operators are currently accelerating fibre roll-out, cable broadband speeds are being increased and the Government is proceeding with its programme of publicly-funded superfast deployment in rural areas, which gained European Commission approval in November.

Going forwards, Ofcom is planning to publish any future Scorecards - assuming that sufficiently robust and comparable data is available - as part of its annual International Communications Market Report. The European Broadband Scorecard is available for download from the Ofcom site.

[1] The price comparisons have been prepared by Ofcom using data supplied by Teligen

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US approved a proposal to create a country-wide WiFi (also called Super WiFi) network which would offer free WiFi access in virtually every metropolitan area, and many rural ones to boot. The concept of a super WiFi network for the US has been simmering away for years; however, its creation is looking a lot more likely than it did before.

These proposals have been given the support of the seemingly archrivals - Google and Microsoft - who are perhaps better known for competing against each other in fields like software development, website advertising, mobile OS, social media, connectivity initiatives and hardware development, fighting for clients over the internet and on mobile.

So why is the FCC proposal so interesting to these two?

The problem of unmet expectations

Over the last few years we have seen unprecedented growth in both the number of mobile internet devices and users of mobile voice and data. This rapid growth has, naturally, put a lot of pressure on the mobile phone operators to provide faster and more reliable internet connections, and with larger data allowances that don't require users to take out a loan to pay for them. To meet these expectations, mobile operators have been investing increasingly more financial resources in the development and implementation of new technologies to increase the networks' capabilities and speeds, which in turn has brought about the introduction of 3G, HSPA, HSPA+, DC-HSPA/+, and finally the 4G LTE. The infrastructure has changed a lot over the last 5 years, but equally, so have consumers' expectations, which are still not met by services offered by many mobile operators.

So what do mobile internet users want? First of all, they want internet access to be available from any place, not only on the ground, but also underground, in the air and even in the middle of the ocean. They want to be able to connect to the internet with any mobile device, not just a smartphone, always and everywhere. They want the internet access to be cheaper and faster. They want to access internet without a fear of hidden charges and costs they are not aware of until the next bill comes. They want to use internet freely without having to sign yet another long term contract and commitment. And finally, they don't want to be locked out of the internet because of "traffic congestion".

By any stretch, this is a big ask, and mobile operators are simply unable to meet much of these needs quickly enough, for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the cost to acquire and maintain the frequencies used for mobile networks and the cost to build and maintain the mobile network infrastructure. Added to this, every upgrade to new technology takes a lot of time and money - and users' demand for data over the last 4-5 years has consistently outgrown the operators' technical capabilities. There are also issues that users are not always aware of, like restrictions imposed by national telecoms regulators, national competition authorities, international rules and regulations, and many other legal restrictions that assure competition on the one hand, but on the other, don't allow for a quick transition or implementation for big businesses like telecoms operators. Furthermore, mobile operators face pressure from their own shareholders (corporations, retirement funds, individual investors) to deliver profits, pay dividends, grow organically, and expand internationally. Naturally, the funding for this comes from operator revenues, which means that prices for mobile services and devices will not go down as quickly as many users would want.

A possible solution?

A number of experts have stated that the fastest (and relatively cheap) way to improve data transfers over the mobile networks is to provide a WiFi network, which would complement the mobile networks. This has been discussed in Strategy Analytics' report "WiFi Offload - Roadmap to Seamless Mobile Interoperability". WiFi basically offers a wireless data exchange for devices (including high speed internet) via access points. WiFi can be used as a "back-up system" to off-load the main 3G and 4G networks when those are getting congested with too many users and/or too high data demand. Mobile operators in China, Japan, South Korea and the USA have led this trend, with China Mobile perhaps the most notable example: it has installed over 3 million WiFi access points which carry 80% of its mobile data traffic. In many other parts of the world, however, it is still early days for WiFi offload, but WiFi is certainly a key element in the medium term network planning of the average mobile operator.

Where does Google and Microsoft fit in this picture?

The idea of using a WiFi network as a means to provide internet access is an attractive one for Google - unsurprisingly, given its business model, which is hinged around internet access. In 2008, the company approached the FCC (US telecoms regulator) for the first time to ask about access to unused frequencies known as TV White Space (TVWS), with a view to converting them into a WiFi network. Soon after Microsoft joined Google and few other major companies (i.e. US equipment manufacturer HP) and became a major player in the TVWS re-farming movement. Since then, both Google and Microsoft have participated (although separately) in some "local level" developments around WiFi, but not in major scale projects. However, over the last 5 years, both companies have had a chance to experiment with the idea, the capabilities, and the possibilities of the WiFi infrastructure.

Of course, the situation has changed quite dramatically since 2008 as internet connectivity is more in demand today than ever before. From both Google's and Microsoft's perspective, given they make money from selling content over the internet (Google more so than Microsoft), the issue of internet access is paramount. However, with the high costs of mobile internet usage in the many countries (especially in the US) combined with a relatively small data allowances (at least for cheaper plans, which tend to be used by the majority) - essentially stifling potential growth in both companies' businesses - the two have lobbied the FCC to allow them the access to the TV White Space (TVWS). They would like to see US residents able to connect to the internet for free from anywhere in the country, via a simple and reliable mobile internet connection that doesn't come with complicated log-ins, data plans, access restrictions, contracts, etc. The precursor to this, of course, is that all devices need to be WiFi enabled.

The big question is who is going to pay for this, once it is up and running? It will be the users, no doubt, but not using traditional models like monthly contracts or daily/hourly access passes. We will pay by browsing commercials, viewing ads, opening links, searching websites, making payments, looking at ads and watching movies. Basically users will pay for the network by generating more traffic, and consequently more revenue for companies like Google and Microsoft.

Unsurprisingly, the US mobile carriers are opposing the initiatives, as it threatens their business model and revenue streams. And it is a serious threat. There is a speculation that both Google and Microsoft are working on new types of phones that will work only over WiFi networks (without the need of ever connecting to the traditional 3G or 4G networks). Considering that Google acquired Motorola Mobility and Microsoft acquired Skype (which offers internet-based calling), the promise of WiFi-only phone seems realistic. If realized, it could spell the demise of the current business models employed by mobile operators, and something they will need to react to.

Are we on the verge of a new technological revolution? The outcome and full intention of Google and Microsoft's joint lobbing is not fully known to the public. However, the initial tempter of a free US-wide WiFi network is an attractive one for users. Even if this goes ahead, however, it is likely to face a lot of hurdles before it becomes a reality. On a final point, this might not just be restricted to the US. Both Google and Microsoft have petitioned UK telecoms regulator Ofcom for access to UK's undeveloped spectrum, to convert it into free WiFi network as well. Interesting!

And if you are interested in finding out more about the TV White Space potential, Strategy Analytics' Wireless Operator Strategies Service will be publishing a detailed assessment of TV White Space technologies and opportunities in March 2013.

UK regulator, Ofcom, has recently released the 2012 update of the International Communications Market Report, which compares the availability, take-up and use of services in the UK and a number of comparator countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the USA).

As in previous years, the report covers a number of areas, including:

• an analysis of the UK market in context
• comparative international pricing, comparing the typical prices people for a range of different 'baskets' of communications services
• a review of both the television and audio visual market and the radio and audio market
• an assessment of internet use, in terms of platforms and devices, as well as content and consumption
• comparative international data on the communications sector, comparing the UK to a range of comparator countries in order to assess how the UK is performing in an international context.

The comparative international pricing element of the report, which is based on data and systems supplied by the Teligen division of Strategy Analytics, compares five 'baskets' of services - fixed voice, mobile voice, fixed broadband, mobile broadband and pay TV - representative of the communications use of five typical households. The analysis shows that the UK remains very price competitive, offering the lowest price for all five baskets when a weighted average of single service pricing was taken into account and for four of the five baskets when looking at 'best-offer' or lowest possible pricing.

The low mobile prices in the UK are a key factor in the UK positioning (although, fixed voice and fixed and mobile broadband prices in the UK are also comparatively low), however, the study found evidence that UK communications prices were increasing in nominal terms, and that this was mainly down to increasing mobile prices. In the year to July 2012, the weighted average cost of more than half of mobile connections in the UK increased by between 5% and 31% (in nominal terms).

HD premium pay-TV services were the main area where the UK did not perform well - partly due to the fact that Sky bundles a large number of channels in its premium pay-TV package, as well as charging its satellite TV customers an additional £10 a month to let them access premium channels in HD.

In the analysis the results for France were also favourable, with France having the lowest 'best-offer' including multi-play price for the 'connected family' household[1]. Notably, for this household, France was significantly cheaper than in the UK as a result of the availability of a low-cost quad-play bundle of fixed voice, fixed broadband, mobile and pay-TV services. France also had the second lowest 'weighted average' prices for all five households.

Notably, consumers in most of the six countries analysed were able to make cost saving of between 5% to 40% by buying bundled packages rather than purchasing services individually.

The full study results, along with detailed information on the methodology used, are available for download on Ofcom's website.

[1] A connected family is defined as a family of four with generally high use of several communications technologies. A definition of a connected family can be found in the main report from Ofcom.

The UK regulator, Ofcom, has very recently released the 2011 version of its International Communications Market Report, which compares the availability, take-up and use of services in the UK and a number of comparator countries.

The report covers a number of areas, including:

• an analysis of the UK market in context
• comparative international pricing, comparing the typical prices people for a range of different 'baskets' of communications services
• a review of both the television and audio visual market and the radio and audio market
• an assessment of internet use, in terms of platforms and devices, as well as content and consumption
• comparative international data on the communications sector, comparing the UK to a range of comparator countries in order to assess how the UK is performing in an international context.

The comparative international pricing element of the report, which is based on data supplied by the Teligen division of Strategy Analytics, compares five 'baskets' of services - fixed voice, mobile voice, fixed broadband, mobile broadband and pay TV - representative of the communications use of five typical households. The analysis shows that the UK is generally very price competitive, offering the lowest price for all five baskets when a weighted average of single service pricing was taken into account and for three of the five baskets when looking at 'best-offer' pricing. Much of this difference is as a result of mobile prices in the UK being lower than in other countries, however, other services are generally also reasonably competitive. For example, the UK offers the lowest prices for standalone fixed voice services, in terms of the weighted average price. Similarly it is the cheapest for standalone broadband, along with France. And mobile broadband prices in the UK were the second lowest after Italy.

The analysis also reveals that Consumers in all countries can make savings by purchasing multi-service 'bundles', and the greatest savings, compared to purchasing standalone services, are available in France, where a 'quad-play' bundle including voice, broadband, TV and phone offered the lowest prices for a basket of services typical of a family of four with multiple communications needs. The UK offers the second lowest price for this basket.

The full study results, along with detailed information on the methodology used, are available for download on Ofcom's website.

When I opted for a mobile deal recently with enough minutes, text and web to satisfy my fairly modest needs, plus a decent smartphone thrown in for good measure, for a mere £10 per month, it seemed a pretty good offer - almost too good to be true, when I considered what my friends and family racked up on their mobile plans. The arrival of my first mobile bill under the new plan confirmed my suspicions, when it came in at 50% higher than I expected. However, closer investigation revealed that the culprit behind the bill-shock was a single, relatively short call to an 0800 (freephone) number that I had to make while I was away from my fixed line. At the time I made the call, I was forewarned that I would be charged, as these numbers fell outside of my monthly allowance. What I wasn't told was how much. In the whole scheme of things, the extra £5 doesn't exactly break the bank, but it illustrates how easy it is to increase monthly spend on calls from mobiles that are simply, at times, unavoidable - especially given the amount of customer service-type numbers which now begin 08 or 05, a typical prefix for many non-geographic numbers. A quick glance at the cost to call these increasingly prevalent numbers from UK mobile providers shows that, while there is considerable variation across the different providers, none of the charges are particularly insignificant, as illustrated in the table below[1]. Moreover, some providers charge the same for freephone (0800) as for 0845 and 0870 calls.

On a positive note, there is a downward trend on some of these prices - Orange and T-Mobile, for example, recently reduced their charges to freephone numbers. While this is a step in the right direction, it is not one that has been taken by all providers, and overall, charges remain high.

In December 2010, Ofcom published a consultation entitled 'Simplifying non-geographic numbers', and while it is a very detailed document, it makes for interesting reading, highlighting issues such as lack of awareness around pricing, and the correspondingly high costs that consumers can face when accessing certain non-geographic numbers. Within the consultation, Ofcom proposed to standardise and simplify how non-geographic numbers are priced, to promote transparency and competition in delivering services through these numbers. Importantly, it also proposed to make 0800 numbers free from mobiles.

While this is good news for mobile users, until such proposals are put into force, users are still contending with high costs for non-geographic calling. There are, however, ways to deal with this. Software developer Slackersoft has developed a free app for Android devices which, when activated, will automatically intercept calls to numbers beginning 0870 and 0845 and, where possible, suggest available alternatives. Similarly, telecoms provider Skycom offers an app called 0800 Wizard. The app, which runs on iPhones, Android and Blackberry devices, is also free to download, and will offer an alternative 01 or 02 number when a freephone call is made through the 0800 Wizard dialler.

Since my ‘bill shock’ I have used both of these apps a lot, and I estimate that they have saved me a not-insignificant amount of money. At times, getting the right number can be fiddly, and it is not always a single step process. But it means that I have much better control over my mobile spend. And in the meantime, I will look forward to the day when non-geographic charges from mobile are more in line with those from fixed line, and in particular, when freephone from mobile is truly free.

[1] Charges shown are based on pay-monthly plans. Per call costs may also be incurred in some instances. 0800 refers to freephone numbers, which are free of charge from a landline. 0845 and 0870 refer to numbers that will incur a charge from landline, usually (but not always) in line with local and national call charges respectively.

The broadband pricing lot of the rural customer in the UK is not always a happy one, with many often paying significantly more for broadband service than users in towns and cities (BT customers excepted). Pricing isn't the only issue; with general quality and speed of service often cited as comparatively poor. Moreover, Ofcom, the UK communications regulatory body, does not have any power to force these two-tier pricing ISPs to reduce their prices.

Ofcom's recent announcement, however, which states that BT must reduce wholesale prices by 12% below inflation per annum, from mid-August onwards, in areas where it is the only wholesale provider of broadband, will no doubt be welcome news to rural dwellers. The reduction should lead to greater competition among retail ISPs, which in turn will mean lower retail prices for consumers. Ofcom believes that the benefit of the caps will not just be restricted to retail pricing; improvements in service quality may also follow, as ISPs will be able to allocate more bandwidth per customer, and as a result, deliver faster broadband services.

How quickly consumers in rural areas will see the effects of the caps remains to be seen - Ofcom is anticipating that ISPs will start reducing retail prices by the end of the year. It certainly seems to be a step in the right direction

If you're interested in developments in broadband pricing, this is something that Teligen tracks closely though its broadband benchmarking service, T-Connect.