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