Newsletter
Google Left Banner
AT&T: WiMAX is Answer for Rural Markets
04 Aug, 2008
AT&T may look to WiMAX to provide broadband in rural markets, according to their CTO John Donovan. “WiMAX could come in handy in some U.S. markets, particularly rural areas where it's becoming prohibitively expensive to maintain copper,” quotes the USA Today in an interview with Donovan. It’s somewhat puzzling to hear AT&T talk about WiMAX, when they’ve committed to LTE for their 4G migration. But, they also already have WiMAX operating in Alaska and in some old Bell South territories. It’s conceivable for them to use LTE as their primary 4G technology, while using WiMAX to fill in gaps, particularly as a wireless DSL product in more rural markets.
Should AT&T find success in offering WiMAX in rural territories, what might become of their copper networks in these territories? We all know that U-Verse isn’t coming to too many rural markets, and if AT&T can provide a wireless local loop, will they need a copper infrastructure at all in these “non-strategic” markets? We could be witnessing early planning of a coordinated rural market divestiture strategy by AT&T. Serve rural consumers wirelessly with both a mobile product and a wireless DSL product, and give up (i.e. sell) that costly wireline infrastructure entirely. What do you think?
ATT rural markets
Since ATT purchased BellSouth the Service Level has decreased!!! They lied to the FCC & consumers about new services & for me the rates have increased, but have less services!!! This has always been a bad company & will be continue to be a bad compann!! Do not believe a word ATT says as most of it is lies!!!
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 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

Shedding rural markets
I do believe shedding rural markets is in both att and verizon's plans. they publicly talk about wireless being their future anyway. Once they figure out how to extract as much revenue as possible from rural markets, they will get out of the landline business there.