Newsletter
Google Left Banner
iPhone’s Competitive Impact
25 Jan, 2008
If you take a look at AT&T’s latest quarterly numbers, you have to be impressed with the apparent competitive advantage that the iPhone has given them, at least initially. They added 6 million gross wireless subscribers, which is the best on record for quarterly growth in the wireless industry. That beat their 2006 4th quarter comparative number by almost 10%. They had a total net addition of 2.7 million subscribers, 1.2 million of which were postpaid net additions, which amounts to an impressive 37% gain from the previous year’s 4th quarter, also a record. Churn was also reduced by 10 basis points from the previous year’s 4th quarter. At the end of the 4th quarter, AT&T had 2 million iPhone customers. AT&T claims that 40% of those current iPhone customers came to AT&T from other carriers.
It’s somewhat difficult to draw comparisons to their chief rival Verizon, because Verizon won’t report 4th quarter results until January 28th. But it’s safe to say that the iPhone had a definite positive impact on their record growth numbers and provided them a solid competitive advantage. Its impact will surely grow as well, because AT&T reported that wireless data revenue grew by 57% and now represents 20% of their total wireless revenue and $12/month of wireless ARPU. The iPhone is a data heavy device and will only add to these data numbers. Early returns look good for AT&T and their decision to become the exclusive iPhone retailer.
Reply
About Telecompetitor
- Comcast Brings Wideband to the Northwest
- Muni-Wireless Not Dead Yet
- Is Three Screen Convergence a Pipe Dream?
- Verizon Joins CDN Movement
- iPhone 3G Coming to WalMart
- Verizon Business Teams With Nortel for Managed Telepresence Service
- Verizon’s Turn for Smartphone Spotlight with BlackBerry Storm Launch
- Full Speed Ahead for Clearwire and WiMAX
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?

digg this story
google
