Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Qwest Wants a Better Wireless Strategy
14 Feb, 2008Qwest CEO Ed Mueller acknowledged their current MVNO with Sprint isn’t an ideal option for them in these competitive times. Qwest has 824,000 wireless subscribers. Of the traditional RBOCs that are left, Qwest is the only one without a facilities based wireless network. Mueller recognizes that wireless is absolutely necessary for a company like Qwest to be competitive in the future, and their current wireless strategy with Sprint does not deliver the value they need. "I think we're very disadvantaged in the space," says Mueller in an interview with the Denver Post. Wireless is the largest growth engine for Verizon and AT&T and also delivers a clear differentiation over their competitors. Qwest is at a significant disadvantage by not having something similar.
As broadband wireless continues its ascension as an engine for ARPU expansion, companies without it will suffer. Both Verizon and AT&T noted in their most recent quarterly reports that wireless data service is the fastest growing contributor to revenue growth. Broadband wireless as an asset will be critical for telecom carriers to not only grow revenue, particularly as wireline voice revenues decrease, but also retain and attract subscribers. It will increasingly be seen as a key competitive advantage – one that cable companies will struggle to match. Qwest is wise to begin an active search for a partner that can deliver better terms and a better competitive value proposition. They will need it. Otherwise, they have very little to distinguish themselves from their cable competitors.
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
