Call Center Experience the Weakest Part of Service Provider Performance

Unhappiness with call center interactions seems to be the key reason for low customer satisfaction scores with linear video subscription services (no direct question about price or value-price relationship is asked).

And though fixed-line voice service ranks higher, the same pattern of unhappiness with call center experience occurs there. Call center experience also is the lowest-ranked feature of mobile satisfaction tracked by ACSI.

I cannot remember a time in three decades when cable TV services got high satisfaction ratings. Nor, since the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) began tracking internet service providers, do I recall ever seeing high satisfaction ratings for internet access service, either.

In fact,  “subscription television and internet service providers rank last among all industries tracked by the ACSI,” a placement that has been consistent for several years.

It appears much of the problem lies with customer interaction and customer support, especially the use of call centers.

Mobile phone services, on the other hand, score much higher, though not as high as the devices themselves. Fixed network phone service, perhaps paradoxically, not scores higher satisfaction than subscription TV or ISP service. The likely explanation there is that all the unhappy customers have left.

The 2018 annual ACSI report on such services only confirms the trend.

source: ACSI

Customer satisfaction with subscription television service fell 3.1 percent to an ACSI score of 62, an 11-year low, ACSI says.

New indices for video on demand and video streaming initially show higher scores, with video streaming services on par with mobile phones.  

source: ACSI

Moore's Law Really Does Matter

Moore’s Law and optical fiber matter, where it comes to fixed network internet access speeds.

Back in the early 1980s, when I first got into the cable TV business, many rural systems were operating at less than 200 MHz of total analog bandwidth, the first big city franchises were about to be awarded, and the state of the art was systems promised to operate at 400 to 450 MHz.

All that was before optical fiber and the hybrid fiber coax architecture, the need for reliable two-way communications or data services.

Because of Moore’s Law advances and optical fiber, HFC physical bandwidth now pushes between 750 MHz and a gigaHertz and internet services now push between hundreds of megabits per second and a gigabit per second, using DOCSIS 3.1.

source: Dr. Walt Cicora

It is possible, perhaps likely, that bandwidth will grow further beyond planned improvements to DOCSIS 3.1.

Indeed there is early speculation about what might be possible with next-generation DOCSIS that harnesses new spectrum ranges. Other proposed ways of increasing symmetrical bandwidth require all-fiber networks and full-duplex networking, where the same bandwidth is used for both upstream and downstream communications.

The point is that advances in computing power, with lower prices, plus optical fiber, make possible amounts of commercial bandwidth that would have been unthinkable back in the early 1980s.

Nobody Knows "How Many" Facilities-Based Telcos Can Exist in a Mature Market

In most fixed network telecom markets, the reality is that only a single facilities supplier is financially sustainable on a national basis, so competition usually takes the form of wholesale obligations. Mobile markets historically have featured at least two to four facilities-based competitors.

But as in the fixed network market, there are questions about sustainable numbers of contestants as the market matures. Over time, fewer competitors are generally expected.

The big issue for regulators is how few competitors are required to provide the benefits of competition, but on a sustainable basis. And that answer is not yet known.

“The idea that the U.S. mobile market has an equilibrium of four firms (nationally, at least) is an emotional and not a scientific conclusion,” said George Ford, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Policy Studies chief economist.

In other words, four national providers might not be sustainable. That view is supported, Ford argues is entirely consistent with the financial struggles of Sprint and T-Mobile US. Even Arcep, the French regulator, now hints that it might allow consolidation in the French mobile market that it long has resisted.

Still, the U.S. Department of Justice said in 2011 that the transition from four to three mobile mobile providers in the U.S. would constitute an unacceptable reduction in the number of competitors.

That combination of AT&T and T-Mobile US would have raised market concentration scores on the Hirschman-Herfindahl Index (HHI) by more than 400 points, a level guaranteed to raise antitrust scrutiny.

Such a score is not an absolute barrier to any particular merger, but places a strong burden on the proponents to show why the merger is not anticompetitive.

Though what is the market? Is not a big question for regulators who will look at the Sprint merger with T-Mobile US, there are going to be bigger questions for some of the other possible mergers, starting with AT&T and Time Warner.

Such foundational questions about the relevant market also are likely to be an issue faced by regulators, if they look at market concentration in application markets lead by the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon, in the future.

Talk Talk Sales Show Value of Indirect Channel

There is reason why many products are sold using indirect (partner) channels. This chart by Talk Talk in the United Kingdom illustrates the basic economics. Talk Talk sells 83 percent of its products wholesale, using indirect channels (channel partners).

The traditional reason for using indirect channels is that a supplier cannot afford to sell direct to customer segments targeted by the channel partners.

In fact, Talk Talk reports that earnings (cash flow) from the indirect channels used to sell to consumers are about the same as cash flow from the business customer segment which is sold using a direct sales force.

source: Talk Talk

Why 4K/8K TV is a Waste for Most People

For most consumers, 4K and 8K TVs are unlikely to provide an actual experience boost, despite the denser pixel count. The reason is that the human eye cannot tell the difference between 4K and 8K from 1080p unless a person sits uncomfortably close to a screen, or unless the screen is really huge. Simply put, 4K is a waste of money, as 8K will be, for most people.

Most people simply do not sit close enough to the screen to perceive the difference 4K or 8K can provide.  

It is obvious why consumer electronics companies want to sell you new TVs. TVs no longer break, and manufacturers need new reasons for you to buy a new screen and move the existing screen to a bedroom or elsewhere in a house.

Content developers have their own reasons for wanting higher resolution: it is part of the decades-long effort to create greater realism and experiential immersion.

source" Rtings

The trend to bigger screens therefore makes sense. Either people have to move closer to their screens, or screens have to get much bigger. Bigger screens probably are the only realistic option.

But 4K and 8K really make sense for business, medical, industrial and other applications where a human operator actually is very close to a screen with very-rich detail.

Is Proposed Hillsboro, Ore. Municipal ISP Network Viable?

Building a $66 million, municipal ISP network would be "marginally" viable at a 28 percent "take" rate, a study by Colorado firm Uptown Services predicted in 2015.

That might be an optimistic expectation of market share for any well-run ISP operating a fiber-to-home network and competing against a elco and a cable TV operator where one or both of those competitors are vulnerable because they have not, or cannot, invest in their own networks.

Much hinges on whether the Hillsboro network plans also to sell video service or voice. If not, actual take rates might be as low as 20 percent, and possibly lower.

Many municipal ISPs that report adoption rates (penetration, or the percent of homes passed that actually buy service) boosted by their sales of video and voice services. So the adoption rate is based on “units of service sold,” not the “number of homes buying service.”

At least so far, where a municipal ISP offers only internet access, early adoption rates--even with highly-competitive prices, have been in single digits.

Penetration: Units Sold or Homes Buying Service?
	Morristown	Chattanooga	Bristol	Cedar Falls	Longmont
homes passed	14500	140000	16800	15000	4000
subscribers	5600	70000	12700	13000	500
units sold	39%	50%	76%	87%	13%
services sold	3	3	5	3	2
HH buys .66 =	2	2	3	2	1
Homes served	2828	35354	3848	6566	379
penetration	20%	25%	23%	44%	9%

source: IP Carrier

Some private ISPs would, and have, taken such a chances. Numerous cities and towns seem to be considering the option, as well.

The consultants estimate the Hillsboro municipal ISP operation would reach cash positive operations in 13 or 14 years, using the $50 per month benchmark. That might be too optimistic. Higher prices seem to part of the business model for other municipal broadband networks.  

But city officials have decided to build the municipal broadband network anyway. It will not be easy.

Municipal ISPs enjoy no advantages in capital investment and perhaps marginal advantages in the make-ready and pole attachment cost areas. Any hope for enough operating efficiencies to sell service at $50 a month would presumably have to come in marketing and operating cost areas comparable to best practices seen at some private ISPs (Sonic, Tucows).

If successful, such networks generally result in lower prices, to be sure. But the proposed Hillsboro network might be seen as a key test of whether such networks can compete in suburban markets.

Traditionally, the opportunity for municipal broadband has seemed more realistic in rural markets and for smaller towns. The Hillsboro network might be likened to the network Ting is building in Centennial, Colo., a reasonably prosperous suburb of Denver.

Hillsboro possibly will be an important test case of the business model. Few private investors would be able to wait more than a decade simply to reach cash flow positive status, to say nothing of earning enough money to earn a profit after two decades or so.

New Thinking on Mobile Market Structure?

Very few regulators or would-be competitors most places in the world would consider  a facilities-based approach to fixed line telecom services workable in the present market. Simply, revenue upside is too limited and investment burdens too high to support two or more facilities-based fixed network providers.

There are a few exceptions, especially small countries, city states or North America, where cable TV networks were transformed from one-way video broadcast networks into full duplex communications networks.

In the mobile area, most regulators have preferred four providers to three contestants. That thesis will soon be tested in the U.S. and possibly a few other markets as antitrust and telecom regulators have to make a decision about whether to allow the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile US.

The larger policy environment is challenging for Sprint and T-Mobile US in that regard. Some argue the present administration is going to more merger friendly than that last. Then there is the Department of Justice opposition to the vertical merger of AT&T and Time Warner, which many observers found surprising, as such vertical mergers have not tended to raise antitrust issues.

The present administration also has blocked other deals, including the purchase of Qualcomm by Broadcom; the DraftKings and FanDuel proposed merger; and blocking Otto Bock Healthcare from acquiring rival Freedom Innovations.

Also, antitrust opposition to a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile US in 2011, and Sprint and T-Mobile US in 2014, was very strong and evident, to the extent that those proposed mergers were scuttled.

Beyond that, there is growing talk of antitrust in the application provider space, with many believing Google, Facebook or Amazon have grown too large.

Tough new issues will have to be resolved, if the antitrust sentiment turns into antitrust action. Among the more-thorny issues is that it almost cannot be demonstrated that their has been consumer harm, since Google and Facebook offer their services and apps at no cost.

So proponents of regulation and antitrust will have to find some new, lawful argument about the magnitude of harm. Up to this point, the arguments center around potential harm to would-be competitors, not consumers.

Still, as many properly note, antitrust authority approval of the Sprint merger with T-Mobile US would trigger other mergers in the U.S. market, between other access and content providers.

There might be other repercussions. French regulators have opposed consolidation of the French mobile market from four providers to just three, but there are some signs authorities are willing to reconsider, in light of 5G investment costs. That is the argument of the day, it appears.

T-Mobile US and Sprint argue they should be allowed to merge to speed up and increase investment in 5G. However popular that argument might be, studies conducted of European mobile mergers have not found that investment increased.

Still, among the larger questions is the maximum feasible amount of facilities-based competition that can happen in telecom service provider markets. In most countries, the answer is that only one physical network seems sustainable. In a few, two fixed networks have worked, but that is rare.

In mobile markets, multiple facilities have been the rule, but the issue remains: what pattern is sustainable? Most observers would agree a monopoly provider is not optimal. But how many other firms can sustain themselves? Two? Three? Or four?

Approval of a Sprint merger with T-Mobile US would undoubtedly trigger some amount of new thinking on market structure.