Recently in duopoly Category

This from Telephony online and the Convergence Consulting Group:

The latest in an annual study of the bundled services market shows US telecom service providers are losing wireline voice customers at a faster pace and being transformed in the process into companies that will look very different from their traditional telecom roots. The Battle for the American Couch Potato: Bundling, TV, Internet, Telephone, Wireless, released this week by the Convergence Consulting Group, shows maintaining a broadband connection is increasingly important to telecom providers, as wireline voice services become much less important.

If you look at the numbers in that PDF report and you still think that the QBPP is a viable option or that the last 400K businesses in the BellSouth region will somehow see the light and convert, I have some land for you in South Florida.

I have written about this in years past: the telcos have finally hit the wall. Everything is flat or down now: TV, wireline, cellular, and broadband. Granted most numbers are for residential, not business accounts which agents sell, but this will affect the entire telco business. Telco moved from the most profitable service - Voice - to Internet (the 2nd most profitable) - into TV, which is te least profitable. Why? Set-top boxes cost $400 per pop. How do you recoup that $5 per month rental? Most of the pricing goes straight to the content. You know, Disney and ESPN want their dough. Then there's the network upgrade for TV (and high-speed internet), which although VZT says is under $900 per home passed, the numbers I see are closer to $2000. Let's factor in the advertising. I get something almost everyday from VZ. At even $0.75 per mailer that's $15 per month. Times how many homes passed?  See how that may slow the telco engine? Plus MSO's moved from the least profitable service (TV) to the most profitable (Voice). And MSO's are getting into mobile data and maybe cellular voice with Sprint.

When you look at the summary from Convergence Consulting Group, it looks bleak.

• We estimate Cable's double play base of TV and Internet subscribers YE2008 at 61% (we forecast 79% YE2011). The RBOC/Telcos residential telephone to broadband overlap was 33% at YE2008 (we forecast 54% YE2011). Hence, it's easier for Cable to add voice customers off this overlap than for the RBOC/Telcos to add TV customers.
• 2008 RBOC/Telcos residential wireline telephone line loss was 10%.
• Wireless Substitution was responsible for about half the loss and Cable for the other half.
• We forecast Cable will have 23% of residential telephone subscribers by YE2009.
• We estimate wireless-only households at 20% at YE2008.
• Wireless annual subscriber additions continue to slow, 2008 saw 15.6M (2007 saw 22.4M) and we forecast 13.9M in 2009.
• Data continues to drive wireless ARPU growth (voice ARPU is declining). We forecast that price competition, which intensified in 2008, will continue to increase going forward.

Telcos are building out high-speed networks for TV and Internet, which is costing a bundle, at the same time that they are forklift upgrading the cellular networks to 4G. Have they even paid off the debt from constructing the 2.5G and 3G systems? Meanwhile, Charter is bankrupt and the rest of the MSO's have to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 while also constructing WiMAX networks. All while the ARPU is decreasing and the customer acquisition costs are increasing.

With these kinds of pressures on the RBOCs, imagine the pressure on the ILECs without a cellular division like QWEST, Embarq, Windstream, Frontier and Fairpoint. Landline losses that cannot be off-set by TV or cellular revenues. Yikes! Basically, the EarthLink strategy right? Cost cutting as the primary executive decision. Right out the knitting until its over.

Where do you think Agents come into that play? With losses, an easy cost cutting measure is to stop paying agent commissions. Think about your Channel Partners in 2009.

CircleID has the story of ILECs and Cable companies once again fighting municipalities, like BellSouth and Cox fought LUS.

With President Obama determined to promote the development of open network telecommunications and smart grid networks we can expect the incumbents to step up their legal battles to stop this from happening.

In relation to the recent $7 billion stimulus package AT&T made a statement that it didn't need the money, but that it would launch a defensive campaign against any competitors using the money to encroach on its territory.

To me, it's anti-American for the Duopoly to fight the city. It's more taxpayer money that could be used for something useful that gets used to fight against two enemies of progress and innovation. Should Lafayette taxpayers have had to spend $500,000 in fees to fight the Duopoly?

There is case after case where the city or town with broadband including FTTB (fiber-to-the-business) has created jobs and added tax base while increasing home values. When the duopoly sues to stop broadband deployment, while crying that it is unfair competition, look at the profit statements of these companies. And look at what it is costing your community.

AT&T is back together. The Telecom Act of 1996 has largely been a wipe-out. We have a Duopoly and we have seen more than trillion dollars spent on networks without wiring most homes with fiber - and way less businesses with fiber access. Imagine that.  (Let's not even talk about the Digital TV (DTV) Transition mess. Luckily, that day wasn't SuperBowl Saturday).

Copps is the acting FCC chief and he has started to clean house of Martin cronies. (Change is in the Air at the FCC). Copps also stated that he wouldn't do much in the interim to allow the new Chair an open slate.  But Copps can sit on his hands because the DTV is coming and Congress is getting involved. (That won't be good). There are Net Neutrality issues that are integrated with Network Management policies to examine, like with Cox and Comcast. And probably with Verizon's use of its own CDN. 

Let's not even talk about the big issues like data collection, white spaces spectrum, Universal Service Slush fund (USF, e-Rate), Inter-Carrier Compensation, and Numbering with Portability.  Heavy issues to be addressed. Julius Genachowski has even been put up for vetting yet

Let's examine today's telecommunications sales landscape:

Case 1: If the pricing starts discounted at $9000, but ends up being sold at $2700, is there value in Telecom?

Case 2: If Carrier A sells a 1GB Private line for $17K between two lit buildings, how can Carrier B offer the same for $6800? 

Case 3: If BellSouth used to charge a company $680 for their service and now presents a "Winback" offer of $320, what's the deal?

Where's the value? Or is there none and it's just a matter of putting revenue on the books, any revenue?

How do you pay down debt and commissions when you sell underwater?

In Case 3, I just think that the ILEC's have been overcharging us for years (and still do when they can). Their monopoly mindset does not have room in it to fathom Competition.

Savvy customers play carriers against each other. Then they throw a reseller into the mix to really shake it up. Then they get an agent or account exec involved to really stir up a price war. The only one who wins is the customer, temporarily.

It's a race to the bottom.

In the real estate boom, many telecom sales folks left for RE careers. (I don't know how many came back). We are seeing mortgage folks moving into telecom. But how many professional telecom folks have left the industry?

It used to be that if you sold a FastE pipe, it was a good month. But today, you need to sell a couple per week to make a living. Are there that many deals to be had every month?

While price erodes and good sales folks leave, the Industry is training their customers that everything is FREE. From all the VoIP players, widgets, gizmos, to the executives in the ivory towers who just look at quarterly reports.

Interesting report from Strategy Analytics: More folks would switch their triple play provider if they didn't have to waste a day or two waiting for the install.  With that kind of stat, will any of the duopoly companies fix their install process?

People often claim to be satisfied with what they already have. 76% of broadband subscribers in the US suggest they are very or somewhat satisfied with their broadband service. But when they are asked if they would be willing to switch, three in every four say they would do so, depending on the price and performance of an alternative service.

Can't be too satisfied if you would switch.

And really the perception varies greatly. In Tampa Bay, I have used Bright House for broadband for 10 years at home and at the office. Rock solid. Someone on Twitter was complaining today about the Verizon install. In the course of the conversation, she mentioned that she hates BH. Me? I don't want to give Verizon a dime, but I want that one POTS line for my business - which they keep charging me more and more for - almost as if they were forcing me to switch. (If they would stop mailing me something every single day, they could lower my rates!)

I think the surveys are flawed. Or people don't understand what satisfied means.

So on Linkedin, Neal Lachman, asked if the $100 Triple Play was Viable in today's economic molasses. Neal writes:

Bundling voice, video, data services for a higher ARPU was an obvious, great move when broadband services and advanced digital services were first introducded......  However, the market is moving more towards a lower ARPU for the triple play services. This is especially going to play a big role in future operations. The time of high ARPUs is going, and soon it will be history.

I believe operators have to lower their ARPU estimates from 2010 onward, simply because the customer won't be willing to pay as much. Today operators generate $100+ revenue per month on their triple play services. In 2010 and later, they should be happy if they can reach ARPU of $50. One example is the FTTH service in Holland, where people do not even want to pay more than €50 for their triple play bundle.

My thoughts on it are here:

Telcos like AT&T and Verizon are actually losing money on triple-play. Think about the fact that they were getting $35 for a phone line and $35 for DSL (averages for consumers 2 years ago). Now they have to upgrade the network to offer TV, which is the least profitable service. And do that for $30.

Install and maintain the network that they will be capping. Install home equipment like ONT and STB. To give it away for $100. Now usually the telcos will add taxes and fees on that to increase their profit.  But its the MSO's who are making out. They went from the least profitable service (TV) to the more profitable services of phone and Internet.

With all of the CAPEX for DOCSIS upgrades as well as FTTx and WiMax build-outs, these companies won't be able to lower ARPU for triple play.

The cost of TV content is increasing. Must carry TV channels are now asking for a bite of the pie. You have seen the battle that NFL Network and the other sports networks are having to get carried by the systems -- and to be carried in the most popular packages.

I can see how the MSO's and telcos would have to lower ARPU averages in the face of the economic tsunami we are experiencing, but they won't be offering triple play for $50.

Remember that for the Bells, RGU's include security, cellular, and now tech support. Cablevision rolled out a $350M wi-fi network in NY. The duopoly knows that to keep churn down, they have to get sticky with ubiquitous Internet Access and to get close to a quad-play. Surprisingly, while Verizon has the quad play in my town (Tampa) - FiOS TV, Internet, phone and Cell - that is not the package that they advertise to my house Every Single Day.

 The cost of customer acquisition, retention, advertising, tech support, customer care, bad debt, security, upgrades, and maintenance are too high for the triple play ARPU to drop below $99.

Bandwidth caps have more to do with preserving TV revenues than network management business. Yes, there are issues of last mile and node congestion for both telco and cableco networks. It is also a function of the band-aid approach that these companies take. instead of one huge upgrade (like say Verizon with FiOS), there have been baby step fixes.

It's also about preserving revenue. If you switch from watching Broadcast TV to just downloading Netflix and Amazon, how do the TV Providers make money from VOD (video-on-demand)? If you are watching shows via Joost and Hulu (and the coming network to replace Showtime), how does the big upgrade get paid for? The duopoly is preserving its content revenue - plain and simple.

Personally, the FTC should be investigating false advertising by the carriers - both on cellular data and broadband. In many cases, it is sold as Unlimited, but isn't. That's false advertising.

This will present an interesting challenge as people will switch. The duopoly is doing everything it can to compete on price and not value. Neither company is trying to court customer loyalty.

The ripple effect on this may be to stymie Internet business growth. Software and Application companies (SAAS, ASP), Web 2.0, and entertainment companies will find it hard to maintain customers and grow revenyue under a bandwidth cap.

I wonder how AT&T's partner, Apple, who makes the Apple TV and owns iTunes, feels about a cap, which will eventually flatten its revenues.

Not for nothing but these companies can't bill correctly anyway. There are certain to be many folks billed for overages where there are none. An even bigger erosion of customer satisfaction is coming.I guess we forget about Customer Acquisition costs and the lifetime value of a customer.

AT&T is testing broadband caps in Nevada. First, cable now Ma Bell. In both cases, the reason may have to do preserving TV revenue than anything. There is concern. It even popped up as a LinkedIn question.

DSL Prime is outraged over the cap and has a different view of what it means. (See here)

This is just further proof that duopoly competition doesn't work. The TIA is begging Congress for a Broadband Stimulus bill that they say will generate $1B in economic growth. Meanwhile, WISPA lobbied for a license-lite proposal for the "white spaces" spectrum, which was granted. WISPA members (mainly wireless ISPs) wouldn't mind some largesse from the government either to build out more towers and wireless links to actually bring broadband to places without it (you know, crossing the Digital Divide) -- or to offer a third pipe. (The Clearwire-Sprint-Nextel merger was approved today as well, but that company is funded to the tune of billions. Give th

The FCC is holding a meeting on Nov. 4. On the agenda: Inter-Carrier Compensation, Alltel-VZ merger, Clearwire-Sprint merger, and a vote of White Spaces. Lots of heavy lifting on this agenda. Martin wants to give his pals at VZ one more gift before he goes.

The VZ-Alltel merger is big, but the topic that can really rock telecom is the Inter-carrier Comp issue, which has been a stagnant FCC docket for years.

If companies can show high costs, they will continue to benefit from the subsidy program. Martin also wants to eliminate wireless providers' right to claim government subsidies for offering service in hard-to-reach areas. Martin wants all companies, wireless included, to show they have incurred losses in providing rural service before they can collect the subsidy. Without those changes, Martin worries that the subsidy fund will collapse of its own weight and rates will go up anyhow. [CNN]

It depends want the Compromise looks like -- and it will be a large compromise. Democrats want one thing. Republicans another. Cellcos versus Wireline. Rural versus Urban. Inter-Carrier Comp even bleeds into the USF issue. How? Because rural carriers count on both Universal Service Fund subsidies AND rather high call termination charges to keep afloat.

Why now? The ISP inter-carrier comp rule has been in court for six years. Earlier this year, the DC Court ruled that the FCC had to get off the pot:

The court set the deadline for an order from the FCC at November 5, 2008, six months from the date of oral argument, stated it will not grant an extension and warned that if an appropriate order is not timely issued, it will vacate the interim inter-carrier compensation rules.

Consumer groups are against another largess for the monopolies at the expense of the ratepayers.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission wants a massive overhaul of the fees that phone companies pay each other when they connect calls. Supporters say the reforms will help fund improved broadband Internet access for rural America, but consumer advocates question how much the plan will raise people's phone bills. "This could be potentially a billion-dollar giveaway to phone monopolies, paid for out of consumers' pocketbooks," said Chris Murray, an attorney with Consumers Union. [AP]

Intercarrier comp is how the various phone companies pay each other for traffic. VoIP providers and cellular carriers, especially Sprint, would like a fairer shake. The old RBOCs would like the Rural LEC's to stop getting so much money. (see Free Conference services not getting paid by RBOCs).

The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, which represents small phone carriers, told FCC officials earlier this month that a new rate of $0.0007 per minute puts many of their members' livelihoods at risk.

And then there is the White Spaces issue. When broadcasters make the DTV transition in 1Q09, there will be unused spectrum that the Wireless World would like to use for its own bandwidth needs. However, due to bleed over (interference) with cordless microphones and other broadcasting devices, the NAB is opposed. [see dailywireless]

All of this is at one meeting while America votes.

I often quote that there are over 1000 VoIP Providers, including every Tom, Dick and Harry with an Asterisk box. Invariably, I get asked about consolidation. Well, cable has taken the lion's share of VoIP. Far and away the MSO's have become the giants in the VOIP world.

I think dial-tone replacement companies like Vonage do not have much hope, since cable has been quality control and bundling. Also, cellular is becoming the choice for landline replacement. Oh, and deltathree posted horrible 2Q08 results and may close.

What about the Hosted PBX companies? With the help of GenBand and Broadsoft, Business Hosted VoIP should boom (see Gary Kim's estimate). Hosted PBX is the way to go for profitability and churn reduction for VoIP Providers, if you can control the quality and offer a level of customer care.