Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Is Handset Exclusivity Anti-Competitive?
21 May, 2008
The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) has asked the FCC to investigate the common practice of exclusive handset distribution deals for major wireless carriers. RCA claims such practices are anti-competitive and deny rural consumers access to newer and popular wireless devices. Perhaps the poster child of this issue is the iPhone, and the exclusivity AT&T has with it in the U.S. But there are numerous other examples. The RCA assembled an outline of some of the leading handset exclusivity deals in an appendix of their filing. RCA says the situation is “… creating another ‘digital divide’ between urban and rural America.”
This is a tough issue. Exclusivity is a key weapon in the intense competitive battles between wireless carriers. You could easily argue that exclusivity is fair game in this competitive landscape. But RCA brings up valid points – wide swaths of consumers, almost at the statewide level, are unable to enjoy the benefits of these advanced devices, in large part due to exclusivity deals. Perhaps the more concerning argument is do these exclusivity deals create higher prices for consumers, which would not be the case if the devices were offered by competing carriers. The issue will only intensify as new 3G and 4G devices begin to penetrate the marketplace. These newer devices and the “cool” applications they provide will be fertile ground for exclusivity deals by wireless carriers, as they try to differentiate their service from their competitors. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers for this issue. It’s one of many debates created by a marketplace where multiple competitors are chasing billions of dollars of potential revenue. The stakes are quite high.
Post new comment
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’s Turn for Smartphone Spotlight with BlackBerry Storm Launch
- Verizon Business Teams With Nortel for Managed Telepresence Service
- 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
