Worst of the Week: It's not about depth, it's about width

Hello! And welcome to our Friday column, Worst of the Week. There’s a lot of nutty stuff that goes on in this industry, so this column is a chance for us at RCRWireless.com to rant and rave about whatever rubs us the wrong way. We hope you enjoy it!
And without further ado:
T-Mobile USA’s announcement this week that its HSPA+ network was now covering more than 30 million potential customers seemed to be a significant milestone for a carrier that is battling to stay competitive in the mobile data space with its competition as well as in the mobile space in general. (Not to mention the fact the carrier also announced its long-time CEO was set to start relinquishing his titles over the next 12 months.)
While the number did sound impressive – I mean 30 million people is 30 million people – when put in context of the nation’s 300 million inhabitants, not so much. Also, when breaking down where the coverage was available it came to be just a handful of markets.
This to me once again demonstrated the hilarity of network coverage claims that are the central theme to many operators’ marketing campaigns. I know carriers really don’t have much to differentiate themselves in the market to consumers increasingly interested in watching “celebrities” make fools of themselves on television or updating their Facebook status, but this coverage business is just silly.
AT&T Mobility’s recent commercials about covering 97% of the U.S. population is another great example. The number is great and all, but I think customers would be more interested in the depth of that coverage (can I get a signal in my house, or in a room full of iPhone-crazed idiots?) In addition, what about that other 3% of the population that is not covered. That might not sound like a large percentage, but it is like 10 million people. It would be like saying you cover everyone in the country, except those living in New York City.
(Heck, I could put up a single tower in downtown New York City and say I cover 10 million people. It would sound impressive and might even get me some accolades from close friends or a free drink at a local bar. But, if instead I said my awesome cell tower provided coverage to one-thirtieth of the nation’s population, those accolades might not be so forthcoming, and that drink might just be water.)
And, just because you cover 97% of where people live, that is an inaccurate coverage description for a service that is based on mobility. Who cares if I get wireless coverage in my house if I can’t get coverage where I take my mobile device. You know, mobile-y?
Verizon Wireless has done a good job on this front by constantly showing off its coverage maps showing all of that red “coverage.” But, what about all that white non-coverage on that map? What about the children?
I always thought Alltel had it right a few years ago when its rallying cry was that its network had the most geographical coverage of any carrier. Sure, most of that coverage included more creatures than humans, but that is the sort of coverage I think most people would be interested in. It’s all fine and dandy that I can make a phone call while standing in Times Square, but what I really want to do is make a call while standing in the middle of the Four Corners National Monument to ask a friend: “Guess where I am calling you from?” Now that would be priceless. And by that I mean priceless only if Alltel owned the network you were calling from there. If you are roaming, prices may vary.
I am not saying that carriers should not flaunt it if they got it. Most have spent untold billions building out those networks and should be in a position to let a few people know about that. And I also am aware that there is a business model embedded somewhere that forces operators to focus on coverage that can bring a financial return.
But, my take away on coverage claims: Get back to me when you cover everyone, everywhere.
OK, enough of that.
Thanks for checking out this week’s Worst of the Week column. And now for some extras:
–Very interesting to read the Federal Communications Commission’s report that the current mobile carrier market was concentrated and lacked enough competition. Interesting indeed. Isn’t the FCC the same governing body that rubber stamped just about every merger or acquisition on the mobile industry brought before over the past decade? Now, they come out and say that there is not enough competition in the space? I am shocked, but probably more shocked that I am shocked.
–With rumors running rampant that Apple will unveil its not-so-secret next-generation iPhone in the coming weeks, fan-boys are foaming at the mouth in anticipation. I think we are all in constant awe of the innovation Apple brings to the market, but I am personally more impressed by the subtle brain-washing techniques the company employs. I can’t tell you how many people I know that own iPhones that are convinced that everything that the device can do is a unique experience onto that device.
As an example I had a conversation this week with one glassy-eyed Apple-zombie who could not stop spewing about the life-altering benefits the iPhone’s navigation service was for him. When told, and shown, that indeed just about every device on the market had similar, if not superior, capabilities you would have thought I had kicked his dog in the gut and fed his cat to Alf.
Look I want to like Apple products, but it’s nearly impossible to when current users can’t stop vomiting such nonsense. I keep thinking that if I fall to the dark side I to will become one of them.
–Some nice insight into why people should not expect an iPhone running on Verizon Wireless for some time.
I welcome your comments. Please send me an e-mail at [email protected]