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:
Just about every conversation I had at the recent CTIA event in New Orleans either involved the words “spectrum crunch” or revolved around that perceived issue. Whether it was carriers, device makers or infrastructure companies, it seemed everyone had been bribed with beignets to make sure the conversation in some way turned towards the current lack of available spectrum.
While I have always had a sort of cynical view of this perceived spectrum shortage, mostly because I have just enough understanding of how this spectrum stuff works to make myself dangerous, and have used this dangerous-ness to bolster my cynicism. Probably not the best use of my time.
Also, hearing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski openly question carriers’ crying over a lack of spectrum added to my cynicism, and was just hilarious to watch.
Carriers have often used this spectrum crunch argument in explaining why they need to implement controls over the amount of data consumers want (need, must!) consume. This has led to in most cases the removal of “unlimited” data plans that are replaced with either capped plans that charge for overage or speed throttling, both of which are likely to make consumers want to throttle their carrier.
My spectrum cynicism was peaked when during a post-CTIA webinar we hosted the week after the show one of our panel members noted – off the cuff – that spectrum crunch issues are basically something that impacts only a select few markets, mostly those densely populated with smartphone-crazed zombies.
This, along with an adult-sized portion of Red Bull, got my “newsman” mind thinking that this whole spectrum crunch/tiered data plans fiasco is really being caused by people in a handful of markets that really want to live close together.
(Did someone say “newsman?”)
My internal reasoning suggested that the 20-odd megahertz of 700 MHz spectrum that Verizon Wireless is currently using to support its LTE service is more than enough to handle the “unlimited” needs of just about every customer living outside of the core areas of the nation’s top 50 markets. Throw in the bucket of 1.7/2.1 GHz spectrum it already has or is trying to attain, and I am guessing there is enough for everyone outside of perhaps the top 5 markets.
This same scenario holds for probably most carriers, save MetroPCS. Have you seen how little spectrum those guys have? That network is either a feat of engineering marvel rivaled only a time machine, or is on the verge of exploding literally every day.
My solution? (Glad you asked.) Instead of forcing these capped/throttled data plans on everyone, why not regionalize those offerings. Verizon Wireless sort of already employs this if you believe that they selectively throttle data speeds for data-hungry consumers on a per-tower basis. (Me, I think this is really just having a data session dropped. But, I am simple that way.)
Now, some might say that this idea is “regionalist,” and that is something that the mobile space abandoned years ago when it gained nationwide scope. And to that I say: “Yes, yes it is.” But, then again so are accents, driving habits and the weather. Plus, there is already a precedent for this “regionalized” pricing, and we see it every day.
–People living in big cities pay more for car insurance because they are more likely to run into someone, more than likely someone looking at their smartphone than the road.
–Have you seen the gas prices in California?
–Try going to a movie in New York City without first stopping by your bank for a line of credit.
(For more on life in the big city, check out this recent report from Ericsson.)
Speaking of Verizon, the company has seen this potential in rural markets to an extent by offering its HomeFusion Broadband service targeting rural markets where it does not see the fiscal return in putting cables into the ground.
This sort of regional price “gouging is everywhere, and we accept it as either the free market system doing its thing or just the price of living in the big city. I have often said that carriers need to get more creative in pricing models, especially for data services. This is yet another example of ways they could go. If those in the big cities cry over having to pay more in order to stream a high definition version of “The Notebook” during their 2-hour long commute home, then incent them to think ahead and download that flick during a slow network period, say like 2 a.m., when no one is using the airwaves.
For those who choose to live amongst the buffalos, bears and antelope, let them take advantage of the fact that they are one of the few siphoning capacity off that cell tower, plus they can post some awesome videos of being chased by buffalos, bears and antelopes.
Of course, all of the “newsman”-types that populate the popular media and those from the “social” realm live in these big markets and thus the hue and cry from such a move would be deafening, and enough to prevent any serious carrier from implementing such a billing scale. Wireless carriers could also deflect some of this rancor by allowing all customers to stream to their heart’s content when outside of these spectrally challenged megapolis and would play into all of those advertisements of wireless consumers blissfully listening to music while traveling the country.
For those operators with the nerve, I would predict there is a gold mine in them there rural hills. Wouldn’t be the first time.
OK, enough of that.
Thanks for checking out this week’s Worst of the Week column. And now for some extras:
–Is there anything more interesting than watching how the cable industry has interacted with the wireless industry? Those monopolies that control the cable space have for years danced around wireless, at certain points throwing billions of dollars at spectrum and signing deals with carriers, then to all of a sudden look to unload both and get the hell out of Dodge.
This week again showed the schizophrenic nature of the beast as at a large cable industry event, a number of companies unveiled “wireless” initiatives designed to make their service more appealing to a rapidly mobilizing consumer base. A number of these revolved around Wi-Fi plans that would see cable companies expand their wired Internet services into a somewhat mobile environment.
The funny part is that there is really some cool integration that can be had if the cable and wireless space really wanted to work together. Unfortunately, the cable guys are so used to dealing with no competition they have no idea how to handle a wireless industry that has thrived on just such a business model.
–Just in case you freak out the next time a kid losses their cellphone.
–Speaking of freaking out, McAfee came out this week with a report that mobile malware has “exploded,” increasing 1,200% since the fourth quarter of last year. That’s right, mobile malware has jumped 1,200% in 5 months.
Now I have no idea how accurate these numbers are or will have any comment on the fact that those numbers would seem to play into what McAfee provides to consumers, for a fee. The firm noted that the crazy 1,200% increase was from the number of malware samples detected across the Android OS, though it added: “The majority of these threats stem from third-party app markets, and are typically not found in the official Android market.” So, go ahead and remove your Android phone from the garbage.
Also worth noting that in its press release, McAfee said: “Financial profit is one of the main motivators for spreading malware on the Android platform,” something to think about from a company that could see a financial profit from people reacting to its claims.
I welcome your comments. Please send me an email at [email protected].
Bored? Why not follow me on Twitter?
