Verizon Simplifies DSL-Based Broadband Pricing, Eliminates Contracts

New Verizon broadband access customers now can buy copper-based service without a contract, and the packaging is a standard offer, not a promotion. The simplified new approach features just two double-play pricing tiers. Note that the offers require buying Verizon's voice service as well.

The first tier offers speeds between 500 kbps to 1 Mbps.  The second tier features the highest optimized speeds that customers qualify for. Those speeds will range between 1.1 Mbps and 15 Mbps, depending on distance from a DSL access multiplexer and the condition of the access wire.

Verizon’s "Enhanced High Speed Internet" bundle costs $59.99 per month.

The "basic HSI bundle" costs $34.99 per month. Verizon offers triple play offers with both access options. The DirecTV portion of the triple play does require a two-year contract, but comes with discounted service for the first year.

Consumers who order a bundle online will save $5 per month and receive a free wireless router.  Consumers who order stand-alone HSI service online can also save $5 per month, lowering the basic HSI offer to $14.99 per month with a qualifying voice package, Verizon says.

All bundles feature up to four gigabytes of online storage, nine email accounts per household, 10 megabytes of personal Web space to accommodate a blog or a web page.

Additionally, customers who order an Enhanced HSI bundle have access to Verizon Wi-Fi at no additional charge, allowing them to connect to Wi-Fi hot spots offering access in airports, hotels, bookstores, coffee shops and more.

read more here

So long, broadband duopoly?

Analysts at the Federal Communications Commission appear to agree with forecasts that project 90 percent of the U.S. population is likely to have access to broadband networks capable of peak download speeds in excess of 50 Mbps as cable systems upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0. See http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan.

But FCC analysts also estimate that about 15 percent of the U.S. population is likely to be able to choose between two providers, both cable a telco. At first glance, this would seem to be a problem for most telcos other than Verizon.

If in fact a large percentage of the U.S. broadband customer base does decide to buy 50-Mbps services, or even faster services, many telcos are going to be at a huge disadvantage, if one assumes broadband access will be the foundation service for most telcos.

As necessity typically is the mother of invention, one wonders whether ways of using fiber-to-neighborhood networks will be capable of upgrading to speeds not possible so far, much as cable operators are working on new ways to boost their own broadband speeds. One should not discount the possibility, or the incentives for suppliers to come up with such solutions.

On the other hand, "headline" speeds, as important as they are for marketing purposes, might not necessarily correspond to consumer buying preferences in the near term, or even in the medium term. So far, few U.S. consumers have decided 50 Mbps access services were valuable enough to buy them, where such services are available.

If that remains the case, services offering 20 Mbps or 25 Mbps might be good enough, at least for the medium term, and urban fiber-to-neighborhood networks ought to be able to reach 40 Mbps, as Qwest already offers in Denver, for example.

Telcos with lower density serving areas and longer loop lengths will find it rather expensive to match that sort of speed using any hybrid network (fiber distribution, copper access). But much might hinge on the actual state of end user demand (willingness to pay).

Nor should observers think there is no more speed that can be wrung out of all-copper access networks. A reasonable way of putting matters is that additional copper pairs can be bonded to achieve higher speeds. There are technical issues, of course, ranging from availability of requisite pairs in existing cable, and interference issues within cables. But researchers already are working on ways to create higher-speed circuits by using more extensive bonding.

Oddly enough, the dwindling number of fixed-line voice circuits actually helps to some extent, as it frees up additional copper pairs, in some cases. It isn't easy, but sometimes extensive pair bonding will prove workable. Beyond that, the costs of fiber-to-customer infrastructure continue to improve, especially where either aerial plant or underground conduit are in place.

So it is not clear that cable's current advantages are of a permanent nature. That might be the case, in some areas and perhaps in many areas. But telco executives have powerful incentives not to concede the long-term future.

And since all observers now agree that the goal of 100 Mbps, within a decade, is the aspirational target the market likely will support, technologists and business planners will be looking at any number of solutions. At one level, the issue is technological: how can it be done? At an equally important level, the issue is how to match investment to expected revenues.

One might argue that with multiple 4G wireless networks and growing use of mobile devices, actual end user demand at fixed locations might not grow as rapidly as some forecast. A large number of fast, but not super-fast connections--both mobile and fixed--might well prove quite workable.

That doesn't mean telco planners can avoid the work of figuring how to pay for and build networks running up to 100 Mbps at some medium term point in the future. But the scaling might wind up being more graceful than people sometimes assume.

So long, broadband duopoly?

U.S. Consumer Broadband Speeds Double Every Four Years, Prices Down 23%

Despite arguments by many observers that U.S. fixed-line broadband access services are not competitive, it is a curiously "uncompetitive" market where speeds double every four years, for more than a decade, growing 20 percent a year over the last 13 or so years.

Prices are a harder thing to measure, given the changes in the basic product over time. In other words, what a consumer pays today for a broadband connection is not an "apples to apples" comparison, given the doubling of speed every four years. The "product" a consumer can buy today, for any nominal price, is a different product than was purchased four, eight or 12 years ago.

Nevertheless, the American Consumer Institute notes that, between 2004 and 20009 alone, Internet access pricing declined 23 percent.

Another academic study suggests cable modem prices grew 0.8 percent, while digital subscriber line prices grew five percent, between 2004 and 2009. At the same time, cable modem speeds increased 85 percent while DSL speeds increased 80 percent, that same study found.

On a cents-per-bit basis, cable modem prices declined 45 percent, while DSL cost dropped 42 percent. Over that same period of time, the consumer price index grew 14 percent.

Fuel prices increased 26 percent, food increased 15 percent, housing increased 13 percent, medical care prices increased 21 percent and education increased 32 percent.

It is a strange "uncompetitive" market indeed that has doubled "quality" (speeds) every four years while prices overall have declined 23 percent.

Some observers have suggested that the Google-Verizon agreement on how to handle network neutrality is a concession by Verizon that fixed-line broadband actually is "uncompetitive," or at least not as competitive as wireless broadband is. Some observers might argue that Verizon has conceded nothing of the kind.

The FCC study, one might argue, suggests that despite the apparent lack of competition in the fixed-line broadband market, the data suggest consumers are indeed reaping the benefits of competition.

Is This Evidence of Declining Use of At-Home Broadband?

If one looks at the quarterly or annual data on broadband subscriptions during the course of the recent recession, one is hard pressed to find any significant evidence that broadband users downgraded their connections to dial-up or stopped using the Internet.

This data from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, on the other hand, shows leveling in 2009, about a year into the recession, and an actual decline late in 2009.

Some might note that a three-percentage point swing in reported behavior on this sort of survey would be within the margin of error, so it is hard to infer anything conclusively. But even a flattening would be significant, should the trend be later confirmed.

Broadband access at home has not yet ever declined. Virtually all the public firms have reported continual net customer additions, so any slowdowns or reversals might have occurred at private or smaller providers. We'll have to watch this.

Despite the Noise, Broadband Subscribers are Highly Satisfied

Judging by some commentary one hears on the Internet and blogosphere, customers are very unhappy with their broadband access services.

After all, isn't the United States woefully behind other nations in speeds?

A new study by Parks Associates shows the opposite. The overwhelming percentage of U.S. broadband customers, across every single platform are "highly satisfied."

There is, to be sure, a small percentage of users on every type of access network who say they are "highly dissatisfied" with their service. The shock might be how few actually are really unhappy.

Granted, continual improvement is a good thing. But the Parks Associates study suggests providers need to keep improving a service that provides overwhelming "high" satisfaction, rather than scrambling to update services that basically are seen as somehow inadequate.

Rural-Urban Broadband Customers Not so Different

Are rural broadband customers all that different from suburban or urban customers? Not so much, a new analysis by Parks Associations suggests.

The percentages of rural broadband households who are very satisfied and very dissatisfied with their broadband services are within the margin of error for all U.S. broadband households, Parks Asociates notes. In other words, they are no more inclined to be pleased or upset with their service and service provider.

Rural broadband consumers desire value-added services on par with all U.S. broadband households, with premium technical support services and online backup as the top-two desired value-added services.

And the overwhelming percentage of U.S. broadband consumers are highly satisfied with their access services, despite a small percentage that say they are highly dissatisfied.

Overall, the rural status of a household has little impact on level of satisfaction with its broadband service. The type of access service does seem to have some bearing on high and low satisfaction.

Households with fiber broadband services report high satisfaction ratings in larger numbers, and households receiving satellite and wireless broadband services exhibit lower satisfaction ratings. But there is an important caveat. Customers who buy bundles of service are happier than customers who do not buy bundles. So the key variable seems to be the ability to buy a bundle, more than the type fo access.

The business implications would seem to be clear enough. Bundles create higher satisfaction and higher satisfaction reduces churn.  A highly satisfied broadband subscriber is 46 percent less likely to churn from a current provider, whereas a highly dissatisfied customer is 384 percent more likely to leave a current broadband provider.

A subscriber to a triple play of access services (broadband, television, and home telephone)
 is 15 percent more likely to be a highly satisfied broadband customer.

More than 70 percent of cable broadband households subscribe to a bundle, about 25 percent of which buy a triple play. But most, about 66 percent, buy a dual-play bundle of video and broadband access.

DSL providers have 58 percent bundle penetration, with 25 percent of customers opting for a dual-play package of  broadband and video while 17 percent buy a triple-play bundle.

Fiber broadband providers have 78 percent bundle penetration, with 64 percent buying a dual-play broadband and video bundle and 49 percent buying a triple-play package.

Rural broadband customers are 10 percent to 20 percent less likely than broadband subscribers on a national level to subscribe to the most-common broadband bundles. One would therefore expect lower satisfaction in rural areas, since satisfaction and bundles seem to be directly related.

64% of U.S. Broadband Connections Now are Mobile

There are more mobile broadband subscriptions in service in the U.S. market than fixed line.

The CTIA notes that there are now 103 million mobile broadband customers in the United States, according to Informa Telecom and Media. There are more than 58 million fixed line subscribers, according to Insight Research Corp.

By that measure, there are 161 million U.S. broadband subscriptions. So mobile connections represent 64 percent of broadband connections now in use. And mobile broadband has exploded over the last 18 months.

In June 2008, mobile broadband accounted for more than 59 million high speed subscribers, about 45 percent of all broadband connection in the United States, according to the Federal Communications Commission.

Clearly, any effort to create a national U.S. broadband policy would have to recognize the leading role wireless now plays.

Broadband Users Generally Satisfied

U.S. consumers generally seem to be aware of the importance of bandwidth as a determinant of their Internet experiences, says Mike Paxton, In-Stat analyst. For the most part, they also seem satisfied with their current access speeds.

Anecdotal evidence suggests many consumers are aware there is a difference between theoretical bandwidth and the actual bandwidth they get when lots of other users are on the network at the same time.

For that reason, consumers increasingly are receptive to higher-bandwidth offers, In-Stat argues. Most consumers probably are not aware that, at peak load, the average bandwidth they may be able to use is as much as an order of magnitude less than the theoretical bandwidth.

That said, more than 83 percent of respondents to a recent In-Stat consumer survey, which included a speed measurement, said they either were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with their current connection.

In large part, that finding is testament to generally enhanced access speed offerings by virtually all suppliers.

The survey of 700 users found an average downstream speed of 3.8 Mbps, while the average upstream speed is 980 kbps.

The average downstream fiber-to-home speed was 8.8 Mbps, while cable modem connections averaged 4.9 Mbps and DSL averaged 2.1 Mbps, In-Stat says. Those findings are generally congruent with research published by the Communications Workers of America in 2007.

The average monthly price for broadband service is a bit over $38.

50 Mbps from Comcast by 2010?

Comcast will offer customers 50 megabit-per-second service, upstream and downstream, available to half its subscribers and homes passed, by 2010, DSLPrime's Dave Burstein argues. What remains unclear is how many customers Comcast or any other cable company will be able to support at those rates, in any single neighborhood of 500 homes or so, unless a very large amount of analog video bandwidth is freed up by moving them to the digital service tiers.

Broadband Adoption: Under Par for the Course

Since broadband first became widely available to consumers in the late 1990s, adoption has hit the
halfway point faster than most other information and communication technologies.

It took 18 years for the personal computer to be used by 50 percent of Americans at home and 18 years for color TV to reach half of homes.

Mobile phone penetration took 15 years to reach the "half of homes" point. It took 14 years for the video cassette recorder, and 10 and one half years for the compact disc player to reach the same level of penetration.

It has taken about 10 years for broadband to reach 50 percent of homes. We can argue about the price of broadband, the definition of broadband, the quality or terms of service under which broadband can be purchased.

But it continues to surprise me that some observers still think there is some sort of crisis or problem here. Over the last year bandwidths have been leaping, not just incrementally increasing. There's more third generation wireless access, more WiMAX, more Wi-Fi. With a new SpaceWay satellite in orbit, there's much more satellite broadband capacity coming online as well.

And the last time I checked, some 98 percent of U.S. homes had access to at least one wireline broadband provider, and depending on where the location is, one or two satellite providers. Again, depending on location, users have access to one to three broadband mobile networks as well.

Few countries save Japan have prices-per-megabit lower than U.S. consumers do. By all means let us solve problems. But it doesn't do much good to keep trying to "solve" problems that already are in the process of being fixed.

And by any historical standard broadband access is a product being adopted by U.S. consumers at a faster rate than other highly-popular innovations have. In fact, one would be hard pressed to name another popular innovation that has penetrated the market so quickly.

Is FiOS a Different Product?

Verizon says it has 8.2 million broadband access subscribers. During the fourth quarter, Verizon added 245,000 net new FiOS Internet customers and 19,000 net DSL subscribers. So here's the question: is T1 (1.54 Mbps) a different product from a DS3 (45 Mbps) connection? Is T1 a different product from an asymmetrical cable modem or Digital Subscriber Line service? I suspect most people who create and deliver such services would say "yes."

So if a customer buys a FiOS fiber to home service, is that a different product than the alternative it replaces? If Verizon added just 19,000 DSL subs and an order of magnitude more FiOS subs, what does that suggest? Right now it is hard to tell what it means, as Verizon does not appear to be providing detail on DSL penetration as distinct from FiOS Internet.

So far, Verizon says it has 21 percent FiOS Internet penetration where it can sell the service.
Presumably that includes virtually all of the DSL subs who converted over to FiOS. At the end of March 2007 Verizon said it had overall broadband penetration of about 16.8 percent.

So it is conceivable that FiOS availability boosts broadband access penetration by something slightly less than four percent of marketable homes, as well as garnering 16 percent of homes as video subscribers.

For the moment, FiOS Internet appears largely to be a substitute for DSL. That should change over time, as nearly all major market consumers in Verizon's footprint have a chance to buy Ethernet services ranging from 10 to 50 Mbps. It's hard to imagine that not emerging as a differentiated product.

Verizon: 2.7% Consumer Wireline Revenue Gain

In football, they'd call his "tough yards on the ground." Verizon's four percent increase in fourth-quarter profit came primarily from the mobile business, as traditional land-line metrics continue to drift lower, despite gains in FiOS broadband access, Digital Subscriber Line sales and FiOS TV services.

Still, quarterly revenue in the consumer segment was up 2.7 percent, a significant achievement against a backdrop of share losses in the legacy consumer wireline voice business.

Verizon added about two million net wireless customers in the quarter, offsetting wireless declines of about 616,000 lines. For the full year 2007, Verizon lost about three million residential lines, or 10.6 percent of total, while business lines dropped 3.7 percent.

In essence, Verizon is getting higher average revenue per unit in its wireline business, even as the total number of customers is dropping. If you wanted any proof about the revenue impact product bundling has, Verizon is providing the evidence.

Though there are important churn reduction effects, the primary reason dual play, triple play and quadruple play offers work is that they raise ARPU dramatically, allowing service providers to build businesses based on scope (selling more things to customers) rather than scale (selling the same thing to more customers).

The company added 245,000 net FiOS broadband access customers as well as another 226,000 net FiOS TV customers in the most recent quarter.

New Verizon FiOS Offers Will Cannibalize Data T1s

Verizon now is selling symmetrical FiOS connections aimed at small and mid-sized businesses at speeds of up to 20 Mbps as well as 50 Mbps downstream with a 20 Mbps upstream. The new offerings will put pressure on data T1 sales, but not necessarily integrated T1s used to support both data and voice, in all likelihood.

In some states (Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island) small- and medium-sized business customers can subscribe to 20M/20M service with a dynamic IP address for $99.99 per month; or with a static IP address, the 20M/20M service is $139.99 per month -- both with a two-year term agreement.

The fastest speed available in these states is now 50M/20M for $199.99 per month with a dynamic IP address, or $239.99 per month with a static IP address -- both with a two-year term agreement.

In other states (California, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and
Washington) small- and medium-sized business customers can subscribe to 15M/15M service with a dynamic IP address for $99.99 per month, or with a
static IP address, the 15M/15M service is $139.99 per month both with a two-year term agreement.

The fastest speed available -- 35M/5M with a dynamic IP address -- has been increased to 30M/15M for $199.99 per month, or $239.99 per month with a static IP address both with a two-year term agreement.

The plans are also available with 12-month agreements at higher prices.

Along with the introduction of FiOS Internet service at symmetrical speeds of 20 Mbps or 15 Mbps, the company has also increased the speed on its fastest business Internet plans and lowered prices by as much as 35 percent.

Verizon FiOS Internet Service for Business allows business owners to choose either a dynamic Internet protocol (IP) address or a static IP address.

FiOS Internet service for small businesses is available as part of a bundle including local and long-distance calling services from Verizon, or as
a stand-alone Internet access service.

Time of Day Pricing

As exemplified by this chart showing how utilities price usage by time to day to discourage use during periods of peak load, one theoretically could price broadband access, voice or virtually any other communications good based on time of day or day of week. Long distance pricing used to do so, in fact.

Of course, what we now know is that users vastly prefer flat rates, often because it is a way to avoid steep "overage" charges, and even when the actual price for usage is much higher than one might think. Based on what one did in a single billing period, for example, average prices for wireless calling might range from two cents a minute to eight cents or more. When one is on vacation, per-minute pricing might be as high as 20 to 25 cents a minute for the actual minutes used.

Most U.S. consumers probably don't worry about "per minute" pricing for domestic calling. They pay a flat rate for a certain number of minutes in a bucket, and that's about as far as one normally thinks about the matter.

Not so long ago, though, wireless calling and wired network calling routinely used time of day pricing. In principle, broadband access could be priced the same way. It is doubtful the potential benefits are worth the effort. Customers clearly prefer buckets and flat rate pricing. Also, there are costs associated with tracking usage so closely, so in most cases it might not be worth the effort.

The other issue is that pricing by the value of an application makes more sense than tracking raw bandwidth usage. The value of a text message or voice bit is quite high on a price-per-bit basis. On the other hand, the value of high-quality video video or audio bits is not determined so much by price-per-bit as by quality of the streams.

One movie might be "worth" the $3 or $4 a user pays for the stream. But the value will be determined by the quality of the delivered images. Two hours of continuous talking might be valued just as highly, even if the perceived price is $2.40 (two cents a minute for 120 minutes).

Time of day pricing also arguably makes less sense for broadband because network load tends to balance out, if one includes business broadband and consumer broadband load. Business load is high from 8 a.m. until perhaps 4 p.m. while consumer usage peaks in the evening. Average load therefore tends to balance on any given network from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. local time, though usage obviously is lighter from midnight to 6 a.m.

Usage-Based Pricing Not Unusual

At some point, as more Internet service providers begin to adopt "buckets" of use as the dominant subscription model, there will be outcries about whether this is fair, since most users in the U.S. market have come to expect flat fee pricing for "unlimited" use.

That has not been the dominant model in Europe, for example, and though there might be some incremental impact in usage patterns, I don't think anybody would argue that metered usage is terribly and inherently unfriendly.

It also is highly unlikely to the point of implausibility that ISPs in the U.S. market will move to a strict metered usage regime. The reason is simply that the objective--matching consumption to the cost of providing access--can be addressed more simply and palatably by using the "bucket" model, much as mobile calling or texting plans can be purchased based on expected usage.

In that regard, it might be helpful to recall that consumer pricing has used any number of models. Pay-as-you-go had been the dominant packaging and pricing model for all long distance plans, mobile and fixed, until at&t introduced "Digital One Rate." Local calling, on the other hand, has used a "fixed fee, all you can eat" model.

Cable TV has used a mixed model: essentially "flat fee, all you can eat" for ad-supported video and movie channels, but usage-based pricing for on-demand pricing.

The model used for Internet access started at the other end of the continuum: unlimited use (subject to some acceptable use policies) for a flat fee. Only recently have some voice providers moved to that model.

Of late, though, there has been a bigger move to "buckets" that match usage to price. There's no particular reason to believe a move in that direction will affect the vast majority of users. Most customers have usage patterns that fall within a reasonable zone, and won't, in practice, notice anything different even if usage-based pricing becomes more prevalent.

Providers obviously will want to minimize disruption, and there's no question but that lower prices have driven high demand. Nobody will want to jeopardize their market share by raising prices for most customers other than the small percentage who consume a disproportionate share of bandwidth.

Over time, more attention will have to be paid to the relationship between retail pricing and usage as video starts to change usage patterns, though.

MPLS over DSL from New Edge Networks

New Edge Networks will offer its managed network customers in April the ability to tag and prioritize data applications traffic over low-cost, high-speed digital subscriber lines commonly used for wide area networks. The move is a challenge to T1 services that sometimes are alternatives to business-class DSL services, and which can offer tagging and prioritization.

New Edge says it also will support tagging and traffic priorities end-to-end through private networks

Businesses in various industry segments can use up to five classes of service to tag and prioritize their applications so that critical services such as VoIP telephone calls or inventory and price lookups move across DSL-based networks ahead of email or other less important business functions.

Currently, traffic tagging and prioritization with class of service are available only on more costly high-capacity T1 lines with MPLS technology, short for Multi-Protocol Label Switching.

New Edge will honor DSL class-of-service tags end to end throughout its customers’ private wide area networks.

The move means enterprise branch offices and remote locations or smaller businesses that cannot justify a T1 line will be able to buy class of service features at a business DSL price.

A typical DSL connection used as part of a managed, private network costs about $150. Monthly costs for T1 lines range from about $500, depending on distance and geographic area.

FiOS Best, Says Consumer Reports

The February issue of Consumer Reports features a survey of broadband access providers, and names the Verizon FiOS service, best for reliability and performance for its Internet, television, and telephone services.

Better cable companies include Cox, Bright House and Wow, the survey indicates.

For Internet service offered through a cable company, Wow, Cincinnati Bell and Bright House also did well in the survey. Verizon's DSL Internet service was rated "average" for value, reliability and support, but scores for performance were lagging, according to Consumer Reports.

Verizon Launches 7 Mbps Service

Verizon has launched a new 7 Mbps broadband access service availabe in about 400 Verizon-served communities. Prices begin at $39.99 for contract plans. Verizon will expand the program into more communities throughout the year.

HDTV Slingbox: More Stress on Upstream Bandwidth

Sling Media has announced a new version of its Slingbox Pro set-top box that has its own HD TV tuner and can send out a 1080i HD picture over the network. The Slingbox Pro-HD will be initially aimed at the U.S. market.

So forget about what P2P is doing to the backbone and access networks. Now users will be streaming HDTV from their homes, stressing the entire network at its biggest chokepoint: the upstream. Ouch!

Carphone Warehouse in Play?

Shares of Carphone Warehouse Group, Europe's largest mobile handset retailer, rose the most in more than five years in London trading on speculation the company may receive a takeover offer, says the Bloomberg news service.

"Rumors about bid interest from Vodafone and Best Buy have been doing the rounds for some time," says Jimmy Yates, a London-based trader at CMC Markets.

What is interesting is the strategy context driving some of the rumored suitors. Best Buy has a small stake in Carphone Warehouse, which operates 2,400 stores across Europe. Best Buy also is collaborating with the U.K. chain to boost sales of mobile products in the U.S. Best Buy stores.

So you might argue that Carphone is simply a way for Best Buy to expand its footprint in its current business.

But keep in mind that Carphone also has 2.5 million Digital Subscriber Line customers. It also has a backbone network. Consider that Best Buy's Geek Squad is in the technology services business.

And recall that Best Buy owns Speakeasy, a provider of business-class broadband access and voice services in the U.S. market. Sure, Best Buy can grow its retail footprint. But by acquiring Carphone Warehouse, Best Buy makes an even bigger bet to become a more-significant provider of broadband access, business voice and mobile services.

For Best Buy, its core business is more than acting as a retail distribution channel. It is a service provider. Owning Carphone Warehouse would only deepen that commitment.

Now consider the possibility that Vodafone might acquire Carphone Warehouse. The idea there is not so much that Vodafone wants to become a mass market electronics retailer. Vodafone, long a dominant wireless service provider, now must also become a multiple-services provider, and broadband-based services provided over wireline networks are part of the vision.

Carphone Warehouse would give Vodafone much more heft, in that area. It might not strike you as significant that wireless and wireline services are converging. It might be a bit more surprising that retailers are moving from simple channel partners into the service provider business.