Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Sprint Trying to Claw Its Way Back
05 Sep, 2008
The latest J.D. Power rankings on cell phone call quality are out and the findings aren’t terribly surprising, but there are a few caveats. Verizon Wireless rates the best for call quality in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West regions, and tied with Sprint in the Southwest region. Alltel ranked highest in the Southeast and tied with U.S. Cellular in the North Central regions. Despite the iPhone buzz and success, AT&T didn’t do too well, ranking below average in five out of six regions. As suspected, call quality is an important factor for consumers when choosing a wireless carrier. According to J.D. Power, “among wireless subscribers who say they ‘definitely will’ switch their current wireless provider, problem rates average fifty-one problems per one hundred calls (51 PP100), which is five times higher than problem rates of customers who report they “definitely will not” switch in the next 12 months (9 PP100).”
While Sprint’s ratings are not terribly impressive, they are improving. Sprint is making a concerted effort to address quality and customer service under new CEO Dan Hesse. Properly addressing those issues takes time – a long time. There is a perception issue to overcome. As the sprint connection blog points out, Sprint’s perception problem probably impacts their quality ratings, making it doubly difficult to properly address them. They’ll need to step up their game even more than they already have, because call quality, real or perceived, will be a huge factor in stopping their precipitous fall. “With an increasingly competitive environment and the complexity of services often used in conjunction with cell phones steadily on the rise, carriers that offer superior network quality will improve their likelihood of attracting new customers and will increase customer retention,” said Kirk Parsons, senior director of wireless services at J.D. Power and Associates. The J.D. Power survey reveals that 14% of current wireless customers “definitely/probably” will switch wireless providers in the next 12 months. That equates to 35 million+ subscribers. How many of that number are current Sprint customers?
digg this story
googlePost new comment
About Telecompetitor
Telecompetitor is a leading industry blog covering the telecom competitive landscape. We provide insight, analysis, and commentary on the issues and implications of the evolving telecom competitive landscape.
a publication of
Channel
Webinars/Events
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?