The pie chart suggests that a majority of VoIP activity on mobile phones will be provided by third party, over-the-top providers, not the "service providers" themselves.
That's roughly the same experience fixed line operators have had: most of the usage is enabled by third-party application providers or competitors, notably cable companies.
Some might find it odd, but VoIP actually has been a mixed blessing for incumbent voice providers. It represents the next generation of voice, but the next generation of voice turns out to be an application "anybody" can provide.
VoIP proponents have hammered away at the theme that VoIP is about new features, not price. The market keeps demonstrating by its spending that price is what VoIP "really is about." Features are nice, especially in the business market, but consumers seem to buy based on their ability to "save money," rather than for the whiz-bang new features.
The fundamental dilemma for an incumbent voice provider is that they essentially must invest more money, to provide new features end users won't pay for, at lower or the same prices. To a certain extent, that's the similar problem service providers face when upgrading to fiber-to-home or fiber-rich access networks. Video services are truly new. But broadband access has been following a "more speed for the same money" trajectory, for the most part. Fiber-rich access networks have made possible new faster tiers, sold for more money, to be sure.
But it would be tough to make the argument that the new sales of faster access, plus revenue from new video services, have earned sufficient return to justify the investments in a classic sense. More often, such investments are strategic, intended to ensure that a provider still has a business, more than investments that immediately produce attractive revenue lift.
VoIP has been a mixed blessing for incumbent telcos, though it has been very satisfying for cable operators and some over-the-top providers.
No comments:
Post a Comment