How Much Competition Is Possible in Telecommunications?

What makes a market workably competitive? That might not be a tough question in the abstract. Most people would probably agree that multiple competitors in any market are good for competition, and therefore good for consumer welfare. Matters are tougher when looking at capital-intensive industries.

Most people, and most economists, might agree that dams, highways, electrical and water systems tend to be so capital intensive that they are "natural monopolies." In such cases, competition from other firms likely is unworkable because there simply is no way as few as two providers could make money over the long term.

Typically, such firms are allowed to operate as highly-regulated monopolies. 

At the other end of the spectrum, most people might agree that consumer goods tend to be wildly competitive, and do not typically require much reguluation as such, though other "product safety" regulations might be appropriate. Where markets are robust and can function, most people likely tend to believe there is no fundamental need for price and other forms of "monopoly provider" regulation, as consumer choice leads to restraint on predatory supplier behavior. 

But there are some industries in between these relatively clear cases. Airlines once were highly regulated, though perhaps the airline industry has not had perceived monopoly characteristics as did the telephone industry. Many are too young to remember it, but there once was no choice in telecom services. Everybody bought from one supplier, AT&T, in about 85 percent to 90 percent of cases (there always have been some areas served by other providers, on a monopoly basis). 

The point is that the number of firms that a market can sustain is directly related to the size of potential addressable market and the cost of entering that market. In fact, says Ford, "having only a few providers does not imply poor economic performance, but might indicate intense competition." 

The point is that the number of firms that a market can sustain is directly related to the size of potential addressable market and the cost of entering that market. In fact, says Ford, "having only a few providers does not imply poor economic performance, but might indicate intense competition." 

Neither regulators nor most people likely believe anymore that telecommunications actually is a natural monopoly. 


But the industry is hugely capital intensive, so the question does arise: how many competitors in a single market are required so that most of the benefits of competition are reaped? 


There are subsidiary questions such as what the relevant "market" is, but the key question is the number of sustainable competitors a given telecom market can support. Some people used to debate whether services provided by wireless networks were, in fact, part of the same market as the wireline segment of the market. 


The point is that it is possible, perhaps likely, that telecommunications markets cannot sustain acilities-based competition by more than a smallish number of viable competitors. If that is the case, then a small number of competitors is not, by itself, evidence of an uncompetitive market. 


In voice services, this already has proven to be true. There now are three times as many mobile "voice" accounts in service as there are fixed voice lines, and the disparity is growing. In the multi-channel video markets, fixed providers now see the satellite firms eating away at fixed-network market share as well. 


And the next question is the extent to which wireless will likewise expand and displace significant portions of the fixed broadband market as well. The point is that wireless and wireline contestants are in the same market, though not each contender competes in every segment of the market. 

Lots of people appear to believe two competitors is too few. Such views tend to point to cable versus telco competition as the salient example. But recent pricing and product trends in the high-speed broadband and voice markets suggest there is a clear trend of price declines in both markets, as well as a continual "price per megabit per second" as well. The former is important as it suggests competition is working; the latter is important because it suggests competition is forcing providers to upgrade the quality and features of the product over time.

That is not to say everyone is happy with the level of competition, which is workable, if not "complete." But it also remains the case that the number of competitors in either the wired or wireline business "always" will be limited to a relatively small number of competitors, because of the capital intensity of the business and the startling impact of just a few competitors in the market on achieveable business results.

Simply put, beyond several competitors in a single market, it might not be possible for any firm to sustain a business in either the wireless or fixed portions of the market.

For example, a theoretical market with a $1 million revenue potential, a monopoly price of $100 per customer, with $100,000 required to enter the market, with variable costs of $10 per customer, and each additional firm reducing profit margins by 10 percent, would typically result in a market structure where no more than seven firms could make a profit of any sort.

And a normal Pareto distribution would have 80 percent of the profits earned by the first two players, with the typical long tail of profit for the remaining players.

The point is that it is not unusual for a Pareto distribution to exist, though not in "idealized" form, in most markets, including telecommunications, which is a scale business. In fact, if one looks at a single retailers sales of products over a month's time, what one sees is another Pareto distribution. Most of the revenue comes from the sale of just seven percent of products. The point is that highly-uneven and highly-unequal Pareto distributions are commonplace.

So are two players enough to create workable competition? Maybe, though not always. That arguably is true for the consumer high-speed access market.

But one might argue from history that the U.S. wireless market was somewhat competitive in the 1970s when a duopoly essentially existed, but become vigorously competitive when additional spectrum was granted to other players with the "Personal Communications Service" spectrum awards. Since then, the U.S. market has shown strong signs of being robustly competititve on virtually all consumer metrics. In the U.S. wireless market, a two-player market does not seem to have produced as much competition as a three-player or four-player market. Still, returns are unequal and uneven.

Some will point to the dominance of two firms, but that would simply confirm that the wireless market is a typical market, with a Pareto distribution. If one looks at developer interest in creating apps for smartphones, the distribution of interest is a classic Pareto distribution, with the most interest clustered around just a few devices, and then dropping off in a classic "long tail" distribution.

In fact, outsized returns for two firms with outsized market share is the normal and expected state of affairs in any market, especially a market with high capital investment barriers to entry, such as telecommunications. The point is that in a perfectly-competitive scenario, what we now see is what we would expect to see. The normal Pareto distribution would suggest something on the order of 80 percent of revenue, profit or market share to be held by just two firms.

No Way to Predict Hot Apps, Gadgets of 2020, Experts Say

Technology experts surveyed by the Pew Internet & American Life Project overwhelmingly agree that the killer applications and gadgets of 2020 can not be foreseen right now. About 80 percent of respondents said the killer apps of 2020 will "come out of the blue" and will not have been anticipated.

For all the scenaio planning, brainstorming and research firms conduct and pay for, that is a rather surprising opinion. Essentially, most technology observers and technologists say we have no way of predicting what will be hot in 2020. That will not stop firms from creating product roadmaps and investing where they think the opportunities are greatest.

Despite all that, we still are likely to be surprised in 2020. In 2000, nobody would have predicted the iPhone, or perhaps have bet that Apple would be a bigger company than Microsoft. The first is fact, the second "only" a directional trend. Microsoft today still is a bigger company than Apple, at least in terms of market value. But the charts suggest Apple will overtake Microsoft.

How many forecasters would have predicted that?

full report

How Strong a Recovery; What Impact on Communications and Technology?

Since 70 percent of U.S. economic activity is generated by consumers, consumer behavior will be key to the arrival of a sustained period of growth. Conversely, anything that imperils consumer spending will weaken, choke off or abort any recovery.

In the past, this hasn't been an especially tough question to answer. Historically, recessions and recoveries roughly conformed to the principle of the bigger the bust, the bigger the boom, and vice versa. That, in turn, was underpinned by the underlying robust health of the U.S. economy.

Real growth in the four quarters following postwar recessions averaged 6.6 percent and 4.3 percent over the following five years.

Those figures are substantially above what economists seem to be calling for at the moment. The current recession has lasted a record seven quarters and has been marked by a near-record average gross domestic product decline of 1.8 percent per quarter.

All of that would, by historical standards, lead to a prediction of a powerful and sustained recovery. Yet forecasts of a two-percent recovery in growth are only one-fourth as strong as postwar experience suggests.

That suggests economists believe something has changed. We can argue about what the changes might be, and what is causing them. But this is not a political issue. As a simple matter of hope for America to get back to work, the anemic growth forecast is worrisome.

As someone who historically has tracked new technology and communications, as well as a citizen who wants the best for his country, it must be said: this does not bode well for our nation, our children or faster deployment of all sorts of interesting and useful tools people can use to enrich their lives and their work.

We might disagree from time to time about what should be done. That isn't the point. Clearly, something rather important is happening; something that defies historical precedent.

Perhaps the economists are wrong. They have been wrong in the past. I hope they are wrong about this. I continue to believe in the power of technology to make a huge difference in peoples' lives, and to fuel robust economic growth, which is, first and foremost, the way we are able to increase wealth and spread it around. I hope, for our nation's sake, that this continues to be true.

For that reason, I really hope the economists are dead wrong about the recovery rate. If not, we have some serious soul searching to do. Perhaps we have been dead wrong about some of our core beliefs.

Global Telecom Revenue Up Again

For all the talk of how IP-based services will cannibalize legacy communications revenue, only narrowband voice services seem to be stalled at this point. In 2008, projects Insight Research, worldwide service provider revenues are predicted to grow to $1.7 trillion
in 2008, and to keep growing to $2.7 trillion in 2013.

While the overall CAGR is 10.3 percent, there are notable regional differences. The Europe/Middle East/Africa (EMEA)region has the slowest growth rate at 5.2 percent annually. The Asia Pacific region is experiencing the highest five-year growth overall, at 15.5 percent. The Latin American region is next with a growth of 12 percent.

Broadband wireline revenues are growing at a 6.7 percent cumulative annual growth rate over the forecast period, while narrowband wireline services revenues are essentially flat at 0.4 percent over the same period.

Clearly wireless and broadband are where the growth is. Wireless revenues will grow from 60.3 percent of all telecommunications services revenues in 2008 to 72.3 percent in 2013.

Wireless services revenues are growing at 14.4 percent over the forecast period, while wireline services, which includes both broadband and narrowband services, grows much more modestly at 2.6 percent.