Incumbents

Bell vs Rogers Q3 2012

Bell vs Rogers Q3 2012

Bell and Rogers had very different wireless results.

Gross Adds

Overall gross was down y/y for both companies, but this appears to be a strategic shift away from lower value prepaid subscribers.  Postpaid gross was marginally up for both Bell 373k ( y/y growth 0.1%) and Rogers 386k (y/y growth 1.6%) for the third quarter, but the big difference came in postpaid nets.

Net Adds

Bell’s postpaid nets adds grew 17.1% y/y to hit 148.5k for the quarter.  This was almost double Rogers at 76k postpaid nets (growth of 2.7%) despite higher gross.  Much of this was on the back of much improved churn.

Churn

Rogers postpaid churn improved 2bps to 1.34% for the quarter but Bell’s improved a whopping 30bps to 1.2%.  This meant that postpaid churn volume for Bell dropped 14k to 231 in the quarter, while Rogers postpaid churn volume was flat at 306k postpaid churners.  This is the most significant churn improvement we have seen in any carrier in North America for Q3.

In the investor call, George Cope credited John Watson with improvements in customer service for the dramatic change in churn.  He also said that they are getting more share of enterprise customers who also churn less.    We also notice a 20% y/y increase in retention spend and a flawless iPhone 5 launch.  (TELUS and Rogers both struggled to activate iPhone 5s, although George Cope dismissed this as not significant).   Whatever you did keep doing it.

Financials

Bell also blew the lights out on the financial results.  While they still trail Rogers in terms of Revenue, EBITDA and margins, they showed a significant improved y/y, closing this gap quicker than expected.   Bell’s service revenue grew 6.4% to $1,307m while Rogers grew 2.2% to $1,744m.  Bell’s EBITDA margin grew 322bps to 42.4% to deliver $554m EBITDA while Rogers Adjusted Operating Profit margin grew 0.71% to a record 48.3% producing $843m AOP.

Conclusion

Fantastic quarter for Bell’s wireless division, they invested more CAPEX, loaded more postpaid smartphones, saved more churners and improved margins.  Rogers have a bit more work cut out for them.

More detailed analysis after TELUS has reported.

No comments

Prepaid’s declining relevance in Canada

Prepaid’s declining relevance in Canada

Looking at the last few years there have been some dramatic changes in prepaid in the Canadian market.   Canada might already have the lowest percentage of subscribers of any market we know.   The chart below shows how Bell, Rogers and TELUS compare with Vodafone operators in 21 countries.   This chart shows that only the UK, Spain and the Netherlands have less than 50% prepaid and Italy has 82.5% prepaid.

Prepaid as percentage of total subscribers Vodafone vs. Canada

Canada remains a postpaid market in a prepaid world

 

Trending lower

All of the incumbent carriers are shedding prepaid customers in favor of postpaid customers, while the new entrants engage in a price war for the bottom end of the market.   Bell has consistently being moving away from prepaid since Q3 2007 and only increased before this on the back of Virgin.  Rogers has been moving towards postpaid consistently until the introduction of their second fighter brand chat.r and TELUS increased their prepaid mix with the introduction of Koodo, but prepaid percentage has been declining for all incumbents recently.

Prepaid Net Adds for Canadian Incumbents

Incumbents look to be exiting the prepaid business. Bell has not had positive net adds in prepaid for 10 quarters, TELUS only once in 6 quarters.

ARPU & Churn

Since prepaid is becoming a less significant part of the overall customer base, it has positive impacts on two key metrics:  Churn and ARPU.  The recent success in the incumbent blended ARPU increases and blend churn declines can in part be attributed to a smaller base of prepaid subscribers.

 

Prepaid as percentage of total subscribers - low and trending down

All incumbents are shedding prepaid subscribers

Strategic

It seems like the incumbents have made a strategic decision to move away from prepaid.  They have managed to entice many more subscribers into expensive postpaid plans by offering great subsidies in return for a 3-year contract.   So fickle subscribers who might be switching prepaid SIMs in other counties are instead stuck with a carrier sponsored SIM-locked high-end device.  This has led to higher rates of smartphone adoption and our carriers offer some of the best network coverage, quality and speed on the planet, but at a price.  The incumbents have very cleverly isolated the price war to lower end devices, on slower networks with less coverage.  So the new entrants fight for fickle customers who will leave to save a few cents, while the incumbents have managed to keep healthy margins and maintain their already high price per minute and price per megabyte charges.

 

Conclusion

It seems hard to believe that Canada is so different in terms of the overall market structure, yet the incumbents are going from strength to strength by playing by a different set of rules to the new entrants.   Despite much help from our government, finance and knowledge from abroad, the new entrants have been unable to re-invent the Canadian wireless landscape.

 

 

 

No comments

Rogers Wireless Q2 2012

Rogers Wireless Q2 2012

(first draft – no graphs yet either)

Too much cash?

Before we get into the wireless results, Rogers paid back dividends of $207m and repurchased 9.6m shares for $350m returning a total of $557m in the quarter.  Incredible. To put this is perspective, this is more cash returned to shareholders than Shaw Communications will create this whole year (Shaw’s revised guidance is $450 free cash flow for the FY 2012).

CAPEX

Although they give good reasons for investing less in pp&e than Q2 2011, we don’t see a good reason for them to be investing less than Bell and TELUS. Assuming you agree with us that the Bell-TELUS network is larger and superior, we believe that now is a good time to out invest its collaborating competitors.  There must be opportunities to increase the LTE footprint and improve back haul to these sites, particularly in the West.

Gross

Postpaid gross adds were impressive.  This is before the Samsung Galaxy S III launch in Q3 and  before back to school, which is traditionally Bell’s quarter to shine.  Gross was down significantly, but we would be interested to see the other incumbents results before passing judgment.  Rogers was significantly down in both postpaid and prepaid gross loading.  They struggled to load new prepaid customers in a quarter where new entrants focused on price to hold their share.  We believe it was sensible to forego the share and keep prices at a reasonable level. Good call.

Churn

Postpaid Churn was much lower at a impressive 1.15% which improved both sequentially and year or year for the quarter. While some of this was driven by their innovative FLEXtab, allowing a more flexible upgrade path, we believe that the timing of the blockbuster devices Samsung Galaxy S III which launched in Q3 and the iPhone 5 which will almost certainly launch in Q4, had a big impact on churn and we should see similar impacts at Bell and TELUS.  While not at Verizon (0.84%) or AT&T (0.97%) levels, this is a good result.   Prepaid churn at over 4% was ugly, driven by uncompetitive prepaid plans. But if you are going to lose any customers, it is better to lose he price sensitive low end prepaid customers.

Nets

Postpaid nets were good on he back of lower churn.  Prepaid poor on the back of low gross and high churn.

ARPU

ARPU declined less than expected in postpaid on the back of strong data revenue growth.  His was mostly driven by an increase in he mix with more smartphone than ever.  It remains a concern that with a huge increase in smartphone base, hat the data revenue is growing at a much slower rate, suggesting reprice. There is also significant reprice in voice, where MOU increased, but lice ARPU decreased. With a relatively small gross quarter this suggests that it might be a result of base reprice rather than LTOs offered to entice new customers.  Base reprice while you are upgrading to smartphones is not a good thing.   Interestingly AT&T who also released results today, improved their postpaid ARPU by 1.7% for the quarter.

Revenue and operating income

Revenue increased modestly and operating income improvements were appealing based on cost cutting and productivity improvements. But profit is always going to be good in a low gross quarter.

Conclusion

Overall a good quarter to generate some cash while customers wait for he big devices of the year.  Well executed.

 

No comments

WIND Canada Q1 2012 Results

WIND Canada Q1 2012 Results

After a fairly strong Q4, we were expecting strong results from WIND, who with the some momentum were poised to make significant customer gains in a quarter where incumbent usually lose lots of subscribers.  Well the incumbents did lose a lot of subscribers, more than ever and for the first time, both Bell and Rogers had negative nets.  So we assumed that this would mean a blow out quarter for the new entrants.  Videotron underwhelmed so we assumed the incumbent losses were not in Quebec.  But now that WIND has released their numbers, we are concerned on two fronts.  Nets and ARPU.

Nets

Yes, nets grew by nearly 12,500 subscribers, but in a quarter where incumbents lost nearly 200,000 prepaid subscribers and lost nearly 25,000 total subscribers, we thought that all of this could be picked up by the new entrants.  And in their conference call, Bell talked about increasing fixed-wireless substitution and Bell and TELUS lost over 150,000 wireline subscribers.  If we assume that a third of the landline losses went to VoIP providers (they did not go to cable), then the other 66% went to wireless-fixed substitution.  Then there should have been a total of 125,000-300,000 subscribers up for grabs in the quarter, but WIND and Videotron only account for 35,000 of these?  We would be very surprised if Mobilicity and Public made up the difference.  We think Mobilicity blew out the lights in Q4 in the hope of raising additional finance on these results, so they had no dry powder for another big quarter.   Public Mobile did not noticeably lift their game either.

EOP

So assuming Mobilicity gains 10k and Public 20k new net customers, this means that the new entrants will still have less than 5% of the overall market despite huge subscriber losses at Bell and Rogers.

ARPU

Our second worry is ARPU.  WIND’s ARPU was up 2.2% from $26.7 to $27.3 or a whopping 60 cents per subscriber.   But TELUS was up 1.7% and Bell up over 4% (although much based on mix changes from losing so many low ARPU prepaid subscribers).  In fact TELUS enjoyed nearly and extra $1 per subscriber across nearly 7.5m subscribers, whereas the poultry $0.60c increase across 415k subscribers if not nearly as significant.   With ARPU of less than half of the incumbents, WIND and Mobilicity have a fundamental problem with their business model.  So it might be a good thing they did not acquire too many new customers?

No comments

TELUS Wireless Results Q1 2012

TELUS Wireless Results Q1 2012

This was an exceptional quarter for wireless at TELUS.  We were very impressed with Bell’s wireless numbers, but it seems like TELUS has trumped them on almost every number.  To really understand how well the companies are doing, we find comparing them with each other more useful than comparing themselves with previous quarters, which is the tradition.   This assumes the past is a predictor of the future, which it is not.

Gross Adds

Gross adds were down for TELUS y/y but despite significantly less distribution still delivered 363k which is respectable for a first quarter, which is always lower in gross.  This was 6% lower than the previous year. Gross Postpaid at 257K also declined, by 5.5%.  TELUS share of gross in the incumbents was 29.3% vs. last year’s Q1 at 29.6%.

Net Adds

Overall Net Adds were down 31% to 22k on the back of a 105% increase in prepaid losses.  All incumbents lost prepaid subscribers, which is a seasonal effect.

wireless prepaid nets Rogers Bell TELUS Q1 2012

Prepaid Nets Q1 2012

TELUS has had negative nets in prepaid for the last 3 first quarters.  Postpaid Net Adds were up a healthy 21% on the back of very good retention and churn numbers.   Interestingly TELUS spent 6% less on retention than a year ago, suggesting that their networks, brand and customer service are keeping customers without the need to purchase their loyalty.  With Bell and Rogers having negative nets, TELUS was the only incumbent that grew its subscriber base in the quarter, suggesting a big quarter for the new entrants.  Perhaps we can see WIND and Public beat 100K nets and Mobilicity beat 50K?

Smartphones

TELUS had a great quarter for smartphones, loading 19% more smartphones or 175k over the previous Q1 at 147k.  This brings the total smartphone base to 56% of postpaid subscribers.

Churn

Blended churn was 1.55% down from 1.70% a year ago.  This is a tremendous achievement considering how the other incumbents have experienced more pressure.  While the absolute number of postpaid subscribers increased close to 6% for Bell and Rogers, TELUS reduced the number of postpaid churns by nearly 12%.

EOP

TELUS grew it EOP by a modest .3%, but this was better than the subscriber losses of Bell and Rogers.  Postpaid EOP was up just over 1% sequentially.

Postpaid Canada incumbent subscriber growth

Growth starts to slow for the incumbents

ARPU

TELUS Blended ARPU grew, while Rogers declined, keeping TELUS at the top of the ARPU leaderboard for the second straight quarter.  AT $58.87, this is industry leading ARPU with a significant $22.83 coming from data.  Clearly TELUS is attracting the high end smartphone subscribers that the incumbents all say they are getting and we can see the impact in their accretive ARPU.

Revenue and EBITDA

Network revenue was up 7% at $1.288bn, a great Q1 performance.  Margins grew over 5% or 2.5pts to deliver industry leading EBITDA of $622m.

Summary

This was a fantastic quarter for TELUS.  They have showed that despite fewer points of distribution, that better execution can turn fewer gross into more nets, delivering better in quarter EBITDA without having to invest incremental COA in new customers or having to invest more in retention spend to prevent churn.  A lower gross, lower churn, higher nets model will reward them with significantly better financial results to come.

No comments

Bell Wireless Results Q1 2012

Bell Wireless Results Q1 2012

Bell’s wireless results were fantastic.  Both in terms of metrics and financials, Bell really did well in Q1 2012.  Until TELUS reports, we cannot be 100% sure, but it looks like in an overall market that we relatively flat in terms of gross adds, Bell focused on postpaid subscribers in business and out West, to bring home a great quarter.  This indicates an exceptional example of delivering to plan, where execution must have been harmonic to be able to achieve the following three metrics together:

Gross Adds

Postpaid gross was down but only 2% down, (Rogers was up) but still better than five out of the last six Q1 postpaid gross results.  Prepaid gross was down a whopping 24% over Q1 2011, confirming Bell strategy to focus on the more lucrative postpaid business.

Net Adds

Net losses (21,327) were not good due to huge losses in prepaid subscribers and postpaid

Rogers and Bell Prepaid Nets Q1 2012

Incumbent prepaid nets in Q1 2007-2012

net adds were 22.4% lower at 62,576.  The lower postpaid nets was driven by a combination of lower postpaid gross and postpaid churn of 231,000 subscribers.

Churn

Prepaid unsurprisingly got worse at 3.9% but postpaid churn improved in terms of percentage from 1.41% to 1.35%.  This is very impressive but especially since we did not see a huge retention spend (approximately $120m) and this improved sequentially from 1.52% in Q4 2011.  A dramatic turnaround in one quarter indeed.  Churn still remains our biggest concern with Bell, but if they can turn this into a trend, that would be exciting for shareholders.

EOP

Postpaid EOP growth was slow at 2.2% versus Q1 2011 when it was 5.2%, but this was largely driven by higher churn (lower percentage of a bigger base lead to 231K postpaid subscribers leaving vs. Q1 2011 where only 219K left.  Even Rogers with dire results grew at 3.3% off of a large gross loading number and lower postpaid percentage churn.

Revenue & EBITDA

Revenue was up 5.1% (6% for service revenue which is the important number) and EBITDA up a very impressive 13% on widening margins, which grew y/y from 36.9% to 39.5%, nearly breaking the key threshold of 40%.  In the call they said they had 500 fewer employees in wireless, but this does not account for all of the improvement.  They must have executed both their hardware subsidies and their smartphone upgrades incredibly well since retention spend and COA were still very modest.

Impact on New entrants (WIND, Mobilicity & Public)

Looking at a combination of Bell and Rogers, the incumbents have already lost 50% more prepaid subscriber than the total for Q1 2011.  This bodes well for new entrant loading.  Assuming they do not have high churn numbers, we should see significant net and EOP gains for the new entrants.

Summary

Comparing this quarter with Q1 2011, Bell did really well.  It will be interesting to see how TELUS does as this will really tell us who executed best in what looks to have been a competitive quarter.   Great quarter – well done.

No comments

Rogers Q1 2012 wireless Results

Rogers Q1 2012 wireless Results

Looking at the Q1 2012 Rogers wireless results, it is difficult to find any good news.   It seems that every single metric (with the exception of Data revenue) actually went in the wrong direction.

 

Churn

Overall churn was high for Rogers, with some 513,000 subscribers leaving Rogers during the quarter.  Bringing them very close to losing 2 million customers in the last 12 months (1,987,000).  That is a lot of customers to lose in one year!

Rogers Wireless Q1 2012 Prepaid Nets

Rogers Wireless Q1 2012 Prepaid Nets

Prepaid churn is cyclical and always high in Q1, but this time, Rogers lost a significant number of prepaid subscribers.  They had negative nets of 72,000 which is the biggest loss in the last 7 years.  This compares with a net loss of only 10,000 prepaid subscribers in Q1 2011.  We have yet to see what TELUS and Bell did in terms of losses in prepaid, but the signs are that the incumbents lost significant prepaid share to the new entrants.

Even postpaid churn was high.  While 1.26% is not significantly higher than the Q1 2011 number of 1.23%, it was definitely going in the wrong direction with 287,000 postpaid customers leaving (Q1 2011 was 271,000), despite upgrading 422,000 subscribers to smartphones (some of these were already on smartphones, but required a newer smartphone).

ARPU

ARPU has long been a Rogers strength, but no more, it is heading down quickly.  Voice ARPU declined in terms of both rate per minute (almost a whole cent) but the minutes of use declined also.  Together these suggest that there is not only a change in the Rogers mix (which means they are not getting their fair share of high value customers), but also some base reprice on the voice side.  Behavioral changes away from voice to messaging suggests that Rogers are not gaining the lost voice revenue in data revenue.  iPhones using iMessage, Blackberries using BBM and applications like whatsapp are also repricing text messaging.

For the second quarter in a row, postpaid ARPU was below the key $70 mark at $67.39.  Apart from Q4 2011, Rogers has had postpaid ARPU above $70 every quarter since Q1 2007!  Oops.  This is also nearly $3 down over Q1 2011 when postpaid ARPU was $70.18.

Prepaid ARPU was up, but only marginally at $14.99 (Q1 2011 was $14.32), but this is significantly below the reported ARPUs of Public Mobile, WIND and Mobilicity which all have ARPU around $30.

Gross

Even gross was down.  At 488,000 subscribers, Rogers was short of Q1 2011 by nearly 10K subscribers.  Some of this could have come from closing the video stores, except they said they kept the wireless parts of these stores open.  Assuming that they continued to expend their points of distribution, this means same store sales were significantly down.  They did mention saving some channels costs, but at what price – not getting your fair share?

 

EOP

Total subscribers went down for the first time in living memory, maybe the first time ever – we will have to check as our current data only goes back to Q1 2005.  This loss was driven by prepaid losses, which they point out only account for 5% of revenues, but still this might suggest that the three brand strategy is no longer working.

 

Revenue & EBITDA

Both Down.  Total wireless revenue was $1,706m down from $1,721m in Q1 2011.  This was driven by lower network and handset revenue, but more on the handset side.

EBITDA was down at $717m from $790m in Q1 2011.  On the conference call they were proud of their margin being 46%, but this was down from 48.9% in Q1 2011.  A closer look also shows that Operating profit (not adjusted Operating profit which excludes stock-based compensation expense and Integration) slipped more dramatically from 49% to 44% – that looks like a 5% margin decline!

Rogers Wireless Q1 2012 summary

Overall this was a poor quarter for Rogers, for their sake, one can only hope that Bell also struggled, because most signs suggest TELUS had a great quarter.

No comments

Q4 2011 Wireline Results – Canada

Phone

In Q4 we had some interesting activities in Canada.  TELUS had some exceptional results, but otherwise all trends stayed the same.  Firstly wireline phone:  Overall nets for cablecos were lower than Q3 2011 but higher than Q4 2010.  The real cableco winner was Cogeco, which has 24k nets vs. last year where they added less than 18K.  This represented a 37% improvement y/y and 83% improvement sequentially!

On the telco side wireline phone subscriber losses slowed mainly due to TELUS, which had NAL losses of 48k vs. last year’s 55K and Q3 2011 which was 43K losses.  Bell’s NAS losses were worse by 62% y/y whereas TELUS had a good quarter with NAL losses slowing by 12% y/y for the same quarter.  Bell Aliant almost lost as many customers has TELUS, despite having a base that is nearly a million subscribers smaller.  MTS

Q4 2011 wireline phone net adds in Canada

Q4 2011 wireline phone net adds in Canada

In this chart it is clear that the total line lost by the telcos was significantly larger than the total new nets won by the cablecos.  In 2011 this was increasingly the case every quarter and in Q4 more than half the teclo losses did NOT go to cable.  We assume that these customers are going to a combination of wireless (fixed-wireless substitution) which we believe was exaggerated in the GTA and Montreal due to Public mobile.  Some of these customer also went to resellers and VoIP providers.

Telco losses have outstripped cableco gains every quarter since Q4 2008 and this trend is accelerating, as you can see in the next chart.  Bell alone lost more customers than Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and Cogeco together gained.

Substitution = cable gains less teclo losses

Substitution = cable gains less teclo losses

The chart below still shows how Bell and TELUS dominate the landline space, mainly due to their enterprise dominance.  We expect that this will accelerate down with cheaper and better VoIP solutions.  Bell is already on a downward trend, although much of this is in consumer.

Q4 2011 landline subscribers

EOP landline

In wireline phone, the telcos are losing customers at a faster rate than cablecos are gaining them.  While the overall residential market is in decline, cablecos are still gaining share.   Shaw has passed the 40% of share between them and TELUS, Rogers+Videotron+Cogeco now have 45% of the markets that Bell operates in and we believe that Eastlink (which is a private company, so does not report these numbers) is over 50% in urban areas.

Q4 2011 Residential wireline phone subscribers

Q4 2011 Residential wireline phone subscribers

In summary, after many quarters of cable companies easily picking up phone subscribers, their growth has slowed but in aggregate, the telcos continue to lose customers.  Since 2007 cable companies have gained 144,000 customer per quarter and on average the telcos have lost 164,000 customers per quarter.  (c) Alphasynb

 

No comments

Wireless wholesale networks – can we make them work?

Wireless wholesale networks

So far wholesale networks have not worked in the USA and as far as we can see in Europe, the winners in wholesale deals have been the MVNOs, not the wholesale providers which are usually the national provider turned national enemy with a regulator hell bent on creating competition by constraining the incumbent.   In Australia and New Zealand the governments have taken strong positions to create a wholesale market.  It is early days, but certainly an exciting approach which is designed to offer all consumers broadband access.  Despite the complete lack of evidence that a wholesale carrier can exist and thrive, we are big proponents of the wholesale model.

Economics of wholesale:

Wireless networks are like railways.  If you want to get the prices for consumers down you ensure there is competition.  But there are many forms of competition.  Would prices go down if a new railway company simply put another set of rails right next to the existing railway?  Maybe they could take some shortcuts or change the rail gauge to make the trains faster and safer?  I don’t think so.  It would probably be prudent to simply have more than one train company using the same set of rails?

Telecoms is similar and none more  so than in wireless, where a competitors network can cause interference and reduce the performance of all networks.  The predominant model in the world is build your own network and compete. But let’s examine where else this happens;  How many electrical wires are run into homes?  One.  How many water and gas supplies are run into your house?  Again one of each.  Urban homes my have one telecom line and one cable line and although they perform similar functions, they were not run into homes with that understanding.   It seems like the predominant model in infrastructure is one supply.   One might argue that wireless is less like roads and more like air travel, but here again although there are many airlines, there are few airports that are mostly shared.  There is no need to beat on this drum anymore, we think you get the point.

So why build what you can share?  Well there is the spectrum thing, which makes it pretty difficult to share and then which incumbent wants to drop the biggest barrier to entry for a new possibly more nimble competitor?  None, right.   So we have to find a way where wholesale networks can survive and even thrive without onerous regulation.  Some incumbents argue that network quality is at the core of what they do.  We disagree – please see Wireless network quality myths.

So assuming carriers cannot differentiate on network, how can we make it in their best interest to share?  We have a few thoughts:

  • Make is a requirement for winning additional spectrum or do a spectrum set-aside for wholesale networks only?
  • Reward carriers with tax incentives to invest in shared infrastructure
  • Cost plus or retail minus based wholesale price regulation
  • Discount the cost of wholesale spectrum vs. retail spectrum.
  • Require industry structural separation?

While none of these is very appealing, we believe it is too early to give up on wholesale wireless and would encourage everyone to contribute their ideas on how we can make this work.

Good luck to both LightSquared and Clearwire.  (c) Alphasynb

No comments

Wireless network quality myths

Wireless network quality myths:

In the past companies like Verizon in the USA and Rogers in Canada built their brand and customer base on the back of superior networks, but shortly after Virgin Mobile launched the first MNVO on T-Mobile’s UK network, a third party customer satisfaction survey revealed some startling results:  Virgin was rated as having the best network of all the operators by their users and T-Mobile was rated as the worst of the five networks.  So despite being on the same network, customer’s perceptions varied greatly.  The conclusion we came to was that how your marketing department markets your network is more important than the underlying network itself.  This of course assumes that you have a reasonable network that is telco grade 5-9s and does not drop calls frequently.  Verizon and Rogers were both pretty good at marketing the advantages of their networks.  Interestingly, Bell and Telus ran on the same network technology as Verizon but could not convince customers their network was better until they deployed their joint HSPA network.  On the other hand AT&T had the same network technology as Rogers, yet they were unable to convince the American public of their network quality and Rogers did so very effectively.  Moving forward it seems like there are fewer choices in network standards, vendors and topologies, so we expect that in the fullness of time all networks will basically be IP only data networks that operators will find no longer be a point of differentiation.    Do you agree or do you think consumers will measure and purchase based on ping times, lost packets and data network rates?

We believe that actual network quality differences between well capitalized incumbents will not be discernable to the average punter who just wants a great high speed wireless data pipe.  What do you think?

In the future wireless network quality will probably not be a differentiator?  (c) Alphasynb

No comments