Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Embarq Embraces Satellite Broadband
31 Jan, 2008
Embarq announced that they will become a reseller of HughesNet, a broadband satellite service of Hughes Network Systems. Embarq intends to target business customers with the broadband satellite service. They will offer download speeds ranging from 700 Kbps to 2Mbps and a price range of $59.99 per month to $179.99 per month. Embarq joins Wal-Mart who has also signed on to resell HughesNet. HughesNet competes mainly with WildBlue, a Colorado based satellite broadband provider. WildBlue has NRTC and AT&T as distribution partners.
Satellite broadband represents an interesting business. It targets rural areas that have limited to no broadband access. It’s priced somewhat higher than other broadband options, and generally includes significant equipment and installation costs (when compared with other broadband options). That might explain a recent report by SNL Kagan, featured in today’s Sky Report, which says satellite broadband is struggling somewhat. SNL Kagan reports that satellite broadband has only achieved a 6.2% penetration of the 10.8 million rural satellite broadband household footprint. That represents about 670K subscribers’ total. These numbers are relative though. If you talk to WildBlue, those somewhat low numbers have more to do with challenges of keeping up with demand than with a poor business model. WildBlue has had the unfortunate challenge in the past of having to selectively retard new subscriber acquisition, because their satellites (or certain "beams") have reached capacity, and simply can’t serve any new customers. It looks like they may now have some competitive company trying to meet that capacity challenge.
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
