Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category Don't Judge Wireless Competition By The Number Of Carriers
Consumer groups urge FCC to collect their own data on wireless competition...
10:49AM Friday Oct 02 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: competition · fcc · business · wireless
Tipped by Gbcue See Profile
You won't find a telecom executive or lobbyist who won't insist the sector they do business in is the most competitive sector to ever grace the planet Earth. It's a job requirement. In the broadband industry, most consumers know better -- as many have the choice of only one or two carriers. Duopoly competition isn't really competition, as it allows carriers to engage in non-price competition, keeping prices high as part of an unspoken gentleman's agreement.

Click for full size
In the wireless sector it's easier for the industry to successfully convince consumers they exist in a mobile competitive nirvana, given there's at least four major carriers (Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon) on top of a number of pesky smaller upstarts with limited footprints and creative pricing (Cricket, MetroPCS). But more carriers doesn't naturally mean there's robust competition.

AT&T has the lowest churn rate in the industry despite all of the problems they've had with their network, because exclusive handset deals, long term contracts and early termination fees constrict consumer choice and reward carriers who don't perform. Steep roaming costs, high overage fees, and the mysterious ability for carriers to collectively raise SMS prices some 200% in concert for a fixed-cost service all suggest competitive problems.

As recently noted, the FCC has begun investigating just how competitive the wireless sector really is. Carriers have come running, farmed think tank data in hand, proving they operate in a competitive wonderland. As you might imagine, consumer advocates disagree, a coalition of them arguing in a filing (pdf) with the agency that real data shows an ever consolidating industry with major competitive shortcomings. The firms also argue that while revenues soar, this lack of competition is keeping carriers from investing that money back into the network:
Proper application of the traditional framework for assessing competition in the mobile wireless space shows a lack of real competition in that market. Readily apparent competitive failings stem from fundamental flaws in the market structure of an ever-more-concentrated industry, and are a direct result of the incomplete information that carriers make available to customers and regulators alike about their prices and terms of service.

Skewed market results and performance are an easily detectable symptom of these ills, which the Commission will need to address and resolve if it is to solve underlying problems that lead to higher prices and fewer options for consumers – all while carrier revenues increase, marginal costs fall, profits rise, and relative investment levels dip.
If you'd like to see this theory at play you need only look at AT&T. AT&T posts record data revenues each quarter, yet executives kept 2009 CAPEX steady, despite engineer warnings about how an influx of data-hungry iPhone users would strain their HSDPA networks. Only after the company's brand image started taking a vicious beating in the national press did AT&T engage in damage control, and now tells anyone who'll listen about their renewed plans for 850 MHz migration, added cellular backhaul and new towers.

Consumer groups urge the agency to start collecting its own data on wireless competition, instead of using wireless carrier farmed think tank data. Independent science has traditionally been a weak-area for the well-lobbied FCC, which has a long, proud history of taking carrier claims (and junk science) at face value, while never seeing a merger they don't absolutely adore.

Related:
  1. FCC Testing AWS Spectrum Interference
  2. Wednesday Evening Links
  3. Thursday Morning Links
  4. Thursday Evening Links
  5. Wednesday Evening Links
  6. Friday Evening Links
  7. Wednesday Evening Links
  8. Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
Forums » Don't Judge Wireless Competition By The Number Of Carriers
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service

As someone who runs his own wireless ISP

I can't say enough of how true it all is. Right now, I have to file the yearly FCC form about the amount of customers we have, coverage area, etc. Our coverage is very small, just barely one city here in TN.

Other that being competition to local ISP (Covad, Speakeasy, Comcast, AT&T, etc.) we get lumped in to the whole state. We don't cover the whole state (yes, it would be nice of course, hehe) but it really is as the article stated just a big problem of what represents who the real competition is in the market place.

As such, we didn't qualify for the Broadband stimulus either because it's not *rural* enough here. So if there is going to be true competition in the wireless ISP market, the playing field needs to be leveled quite a bit.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:

where is the real data???

Agreed. There should be some independently gathered data.

Few years ago, U.S. Cellular bought Cell One here, because Alltel buying them would've been considered too much of a monopoly. Now Verizon bought Alltel, giving them an even bigger footprint...

Least I don't have to pay for incoming phone calls or SMS/MMS with the "underdog" that is U.S. Cellular (though the option to have 3g here would be nice... every other carrier has it or will very soon... perhaps just jump to 4g??? Something besides miserably slow data would be nifty... I might consider a data plan if it was worth it.). Overall though, I'm happy enough with the phone service, and can see why they supposedly have a good retention rate (though I'd like to see the real data on whether they have a better retention/less churn than AT&T)

Competition? Yeah, if you mean they all charge about the same, provide ever more flimsy plastic phones with the latest chrome trim, glossy finish, lack of analog radios, batteries that die within a year, ETF fees, insane SMS/MMS rates, data rates, etc.

...In a general sense, they are all "about the same" when it comes to the above. Sure, there are minor discrepancies, a few better "deals" here and there, but from a general perspective they're all very close.

I Use Dial

join:2004-01-04
Morgan Hill, CA
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline

Standard Government Intrusion Result

Whenever the Government intrudes into the market it causes higher prices, reduces quality, diminishes competition and stifles innovation. The existence of the FCC is the cause of all the problems listed in the article.
--
Time... beckoning me.
Necronomikro

join:2005-09-01

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

said by I Use Dial See Profile :

Whenever the Government intrudes into the market it causes higher prices, reduces quality, diminishes competition and stifles innovation. The existence of the FCC is the cause of all the problems listed in the article.
Do explain.

I Use Dial

join:2004-01-04
Morgan Hill, CA
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

Do we have problems with the quality, price, availability, variety or number of competitors for bread? No, because anyone with an oven can start a bakery and any store can distribute and sell it. The state mandated monopoly created by the FCC is what causes the problems listed in the article.
--
Time... beckoning me.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

said by I Use Dial See Profile :

Do we have problems with the quality, price, availability, variety or number of competitors for bread? No, because anyone with an oven can start a bakery and any store can distribute and sell it. ..
bad analogy.

bread ovens aren't a scarce resource owned by the public and licensed by the FCC

I Use Dial

join:2004-01-04
Morgan Hill, CA
clubs:

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

Yes! You understand it perfectly! The existence of the FCC causes prices to be higher because they mandated a monopoly.
--
Time... beckoning me.
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
Also, the barrier to entry is now to great for anyone but the most wealthy.
Necronomikro

join:2005-09-01

said by I Use Dial See Profile :

Do we have problems with the quality, price, availability, variety or number of competitors for bread? No, because anyone with an oven can start a bakery and any store can distribute and sell it. The state mandated monopoly created by the FCC is what causes the problems listed in the article.
If we're talking about wireless, then that is what the FCC does - there is only so much bandwidth, and the FCC makes sure that providers don't interrupt each others' service.

If you've ever picked up a CB radio during its heyday, you should know what effect deregulation would have.
delltechkid

join:2004-11-09
Hermitage, TN
Seriously? The FCC has caused wireless companies to require the cost of text messages to go up in tandem from $.05 to $.30? Please explain. I believe the FCC has no regulations regarding text messages.

I Use Dial

join:2004-01-04
Morgan Hill, CA
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

The FCC limits the number of competitors. When this happens prices will go up. Since the barrier to entry is artificially high and the number of competitors artificially limited, there is no reason for the firms to not increase prices.
--
Time... beckoning me.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

said by I Use Dial See Profile :

The FCC limits the number of competitors. When this happens prices will go up. Since the barrier to entry is artificially high and the number of competitors artificially limited, there is no reason for the firms to not increase prices.
No, the FCC has open bids for spectrum. because of the power and size of the current incumbents, the same group of companies always wins the bids for spectrum. That's what limits the number of competitors. sometimes the incumbents buy spectrum for the sole purpose of keeping it from a competitor.

there is lots of competition in the open spectrum space - wireless routers, cordless phones, etc. because anyone can offer a product as long as it doesn't interfere.

do you think of this crap yourself, or are you reading it somewhere?
Metatron2008

join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA
·AT&T Wireless Broa..
·DIRECTV
·Charter Pipeline
·America Online
·Skype
·Vonage
·AT&T Southeast

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

It's the same thing as limiting one cable company and one dsl company to an area.

What he's saying is the truth. It's forced monopolies/doupolies, although you can't blame the fcc itself for them, you can blame the lobbyist and politicians who take bribes in the fcc...
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

said by Metatron2008 See Profile :

It's the same thing as limiting one cable company and one dsl company to an area.

What he's saying is the truth. It's forced monopolies/doupolies, although you can't blame the fcc itself for them, you can blame the lobbyist and politicians who take bribes in the fcc...
who is limiting to one cable company and one dsl company in an area? It's not the FCC.

there is one cableco and one telco in each area because that's what the companies agree on - they have divided up into geographic regions and don't compete against each other.

part of this has to do with the original monopoly grants because access to public rights of way were required. the 1996 telecom act was supposed to fix this and it worked for dial up, but was never enforced for broadband and the incumbents just ignored the law and paid the fines when they got caught. Now the FCC just pretends there is competition and has done away with almost all line sharing and said no line sharing for fiber. As you say, FCC and gov at the time were (and probably still are) wholly owned subsidiaries of the telecom industry.

then you got Brand X, where SC said cable didn't have to share their lines and voila! instant cable broadband monopolies.

so yeah, FCC and congress aren't doing their jobs for consumers, but nobody is "forcing" monopolies/duopolies except the companies themselves.

ArgMeMatey

join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest

Re: Standard Government Intrusion Result

said by nasadude See Profile :

so yeah, FCC and congress aren't doing their jobs for consumers, but nobody is "forcing" monopolies/duopolies except the companies themselves.
Concur. There are firefighters at every fire, but does that mean firefighters cause fires?

Limitations on competition are:

1. High barriers to entry: Cost of spectrum, infrastructure.
2. Front-end hooks (subsidized phones) draw the unsuspecting into the noose. The price to switch is too high.
3. Network effect: Somebody using an iPhone app cannot find any equivalent for Blackberry et al. So they are stuck with AT&T.

Any time there is a limited resource, concentration of capital, and high barriers to entry, the incumbent operator tends to have the power. Customers have none. Regulation by legislators or the administrative branch will be fought by the incumbent's lobbyists.

Incumbents, beholden to investors, must do everything they can to maximize profits. Little changes due to the outsized and ultimately corrupting influence of incumbent lobbying.

Eventually, if the right prosecutor comes along at just the right time in the election cycle, a suit might sneak through that brings about real change.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast

said by I Use Dial See Profile :

Whenever the Government intrudes into the market it causes higher prices, reduces quality, diminishes competition and stifles innovation. The existence of the FCC is the cause of all the problems listed in the article.
links to back up your claim please - otherwise, you just offering your opinion, and we know what they say about that.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

said by I Use Dial See Profile :

Whenever the Government intrudes into the market it causes higher prices, reduces quality, diminishes competition and stifles innovation. The existence of the FCC is the cause of all the problems listed in the article.
So do you support elimination of the FCC and making all spectrum free for all to use?
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

said by I Use Dial See Profile :

Whenever the Government intrudes into the market it causes higher prices, reduces quality, diminishes competition and stifles innovation. The existence of the FCC is the cause of all the problems listed in the article.
You may be correct, but what does one do with a run-away market? Just let it abuse its customers? And, no, the customers are captive. They're not going to just give up a necessary service.

mang

@yahoo.com

How do we fix it...

So what do i need to do if i want to setup my own wireless carrier? Where does someone start his research for this? Obviously i will need gobs of money... but i can find investors for my biz plan.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

Re: How do we fix it...

You already failed, $400/mo month T1 is your only choice for bandwidth. Your customers will think your an ISP from hell. Cable internet running at half or quarter advertised speed will still be faster than you.
bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

Consumerists are blindly selfish

You won't find an industry critic or consumerist who won't insist the sector they concern themselves with is the least competitive sector to ever grace the planet Earth.

A lot of folks feel that their personal concerns trump all other considerations, and therefore perceive anything that fosters the rights of other people to necessarily therefore be an infringement on their own rights. The idea that government is responsible for balancing the interests of various parties, instead of being responsible for making that one personal happy, is an anathema to some people.

And consumerists are among the worst. They want what they want how they want it for what they want to pay for it, without any regard whatsoever for what is necessary to justify providing what they want how they want it. They refuse to acknowledge that every dollar ever invested in serving them must compete with every other possible use for that dollar, and that serving them must therefore be the most profitable investment for that dollar, or else there is no justification for expecting that dollar to be invested as they would want it to be.

Investments for the sole benefit of one side of a transaction are called taxes. Why won't consumerists be honest about what they want, i.e., lots of new taxes to feed their insatiable self-serving, greedy appetite for getting what they want, without regard to the negative impact new taxes have on productivity or prosperity of the nation, long-term.

What is really funny is how many of these consumerists flip-flop around and start trash-mouthing businesses because they're not providing large enough returns on retirement investments.
Forums » Don't Judge Wireless Competition By The Number Of Carriers


Monday, 23-Nov 20:08:23 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole