Leading the mobile industry are the mobile operators. They build the networks, purchase access to airwaves and populate directories of applications and services. Over time they have donned a few different identities while rejecting their true and inescapable role as access provider. Mobile operators have thought themselves handset companies, application companies, aggregators, media companies and lately - advertising agencies. This multiple personality disorder is a reaction to ensuring they capture a lion’s share of any revenue possibility. Each attempt to alter their nature and morph into a business out of their comfort zone has created opportunities for competing network access technologies and alternative solutions which ultimately leave the operator out of the revenue pie completely.

We can go back to a time when mobile applications were new, and operators launched in-house development teams to build these applications. But - a more striking example is the how operators refuse to recognize the economics presented by Apple’s iTunes and the impact it would have on their own offerings. Mobile operators who referred to themselves as being in the content business created an opening for a product that would allow people to take their music mobile without the need to access a mobile network or purchase a high end phone. Price pressure from the operators on the mobile music value chain was no small factor in the success of Apple’s iPod and iTunes service. Had the service from mobile networks been at a reasonable cost to subscribers, no entry point would have existed for Apple.

In addition to the iTunes/iPod solution, handset makers like Nokia had made slide loading of music possible through ensuring the device could connect to PCs. And even with all the evidence demonstrating market rejection of costly operator music services, they continued to insist upon a rev share driving their music tracks to a 2 or 3x price point above other services. Add this to the network access charges to enable downloading and they priced themselves out of the early market.

So mobile music looks like this:

+

OR this

More recently many operators have positioned themselves as media companies. The problem? The cost to access their networks for video up or down remains prohibitive. Handset makers are adding Wi-Fi capability to many handsets which greatly improves the economics of up or down media. Consider media producers like Robert Scoble. Robert uses Wi-Fi to stream live video which would be impossible were he paying the costs to move this data across the mobile network. There are also implications on mobile TV which many people have already begun to consume on their phones from companies like Sling Media or iTunes, and again, over Wi-Fi.

These solutions allow the consumption or production of media when mobile, but don’t require a mobile operator’s network. We have landed in a place where price pressure has caused solutions, mobile solutions, to be developed without the mobile network, but not necessarily without a wireless component. So sometimes, mobile isn’t mobile. At least it isn’t mobile if that activity is defined by access to the mobile network.

For the next two weeks, MM2 will consider the topic of “When mobile isn’t mobile.” Given the variety of perspectives at MM2, I’m interested in learning where we end up with this subject. And you the reader are invited to join us. Your point of view is essential to building a lively and robust discussion.