FierceWirelessFierceWirelessEuropeFierceDeveloperFierceMobileContentFierceBroadbandWirelessFierceVoIPFierceIPTVFierceTelecomFierceOnlineVideo

Free Newsletter

About | View Sample | Privacy
Related Topics >> Wireless Access | Smartphone

Lowenstein: A New Model for Wireless Pricing

Tools

It became clear in 2008 that flat rate plans are, over time, going to become the prevalent structure for wireless pricing. Nearly every major operator now offers a flat rate voice plan, although there's still quite a range between the most and least expensive services. Many other plans, if you add up the generous minute allocation, free nights and weekends, and free "mobile-to-mobile", are quasi-unlimited. Fewer than 10 percent of subscribers pay voice "overage" in a typical month. Flat rate mania is also spreading to data, with a larger number of users subscribing to a data plan that includes a large suite of services--messaging, email, Web--for a flat rate, especially with the spread of more capable devices. 

Even with these developments, I believe we are starting to outgrow today's pricing model for wireless services.  The wireless future we contemplate imagines a multiplicity of connected gadgets, with users having different devices for different contexts - personal or business, stationary or mobile, productivity or entertainment - in a typical day.  There's an interesting juxtaposition here: a growing number of capable, connected devices and innovative ways to use them, plotted against the backdrop of a mass market whose needs are more occasional and diverse, and whose discretionary budgets are tightening by the day.  

Let's step back to consider what our current pricing structure means for a typical user: a feature phone or smartphone with a decent voice plan and data service costs at least $80 per month. Adding wireless access for their laptop is another $60. Want the new Cameo digital picture frame? Tack on another $10 per month. Pretty soon, our multi-device user is spending $150 per month, which might be OK for the upper, upper end of the market but is definitely out of reach for the average consumer.  

The structure is also sub-optimal for the nearly 40 percent of U.S. wireless subscribers who are on some sort of family or group plan.  Data plans for add-on lines are not significantly discounted, nor are there particularly good options for sharing data "minutes" or "bytes." We need a more flexible pricing structure to accommodate both the next wave of growth into the consumer market, balanced against the requirements of the more casual user, if we're going to sell the Netbooks, Cameos, and other wirelessly connected devices that justify operators' spend on additional spectrum and capex. 

The first thing I would do is allow data plans to be leveraged across multiple devices. Why should a user have to choose between a Blackberry and wireless broadband service, when they need both, at different times and for different contexts? Why not offer a 1 GB price plan that can be used in a much more flexible manner? A user might carry a productivity-centric device by day, and more of a multimedia device at night and on the weekends. A portable SIM, or network-based store of information such as contacts, calendar, and bookmarks, would bridge their multiple "worlds", and keep the operator relevant in the equation. Wireless industry, welcome to cloud computing... or offering to users what they can already do with Yahoo, Google, and on-line banking: access their information from any PC.

The second thing I would do is extend the "family share" concept to data. For example, I can't justify a $60 wireless broadband subscription for each of my wife and daughter, who only need these services occasionally. What I would do is buy a USB modem that can be shared by multiple users, on a secure and password-protected basis, across multiple devices, for a reasonable price. I'm not expecting a cut-rate "unlimited" data plan--just something affordable, say $30 for a generous MB allocation, with reasonable rates for additional data "buckets" (not the data equivalent of 45¢/minute voice overage). We also need better "occasional use" plans, borrowing from the WiFi playbook, that allow per-hour/day/week connect options. This would be perfect for the periodic traveler, the family vacation, and so on. 

Third, I'd like to see reduced reliance on the subsidy model for this next wave of data-centric devices, in return for more share-able, flexible pricing structures. For all but their primary subscription, users are growing weary of the need to have to a big commitment (contract, particular device, monthly subscription) every time they want to try out a new service. The success of the Amazon Kindle, which costs $359 but does not require ongoing subscription fees, is an interesting example of a change in direction.

As a completely alternative way of thinking about this, I'd expand the discussion to include the broader communications universe, including residential telephony and home broadband. An operator would charge broad-based "connection" fee and then charge for each of the "access" devices, based on some combination bandwidth consumption and, if applicable, "programming" costs. Excluding TV for a moment, let's say you pay a base $30 monthly connection fee for fixed broadband and another $50 for wireless, per individual or household. Then, there is a per device additional charge for each end-device--VoIP phone, PC, portable wireless USB, wireless photo frame, and so on.  These charges could be a flat monthly fee per unit, or users/households would buy a "basket" of voice and data minutes/megabytes that could be shared across users and/or devices. There would generally be a premium charge for mobility because of the different economics. And conversely, devices or content that are ad-supported would cost less. Clearly there's a lot more analysis required on this approach, but I do think we need to start thinking more creatively about how we are going to strike the right balance of providing greater flexibility while ensuring we adequately monetize the traffic and devices utilizing these networks.

We see some of this pricing innovation in other segments of the consumer electronics industry. From the outset, Apple has allowed iTunes accounts to be shared across multiple PCs.  Netflix provides another great example. For no additional monthly fee, Netflix subscribers can now watch movies on their PC via the Internet, or on their TV through a number of Netflix connected devices, which range from private-label Roku devices to the Xbox 360 and certain Tivo models. The parallels here with wireless are interesting.   Netflix has leveraged its strong subscriber relationships, excellent supply chain, and vast content library and embraced the expanding distribution structure for content and proliferation of Internet connected devices. Sound like a similar challenge/opportunity?

Mark Lowenstein, a leading industry analyst, consultant, and commentator, is Managing Director of Mobile Ecosystem.  Click here to subscribe to his free Lens on Wireless monthly newsletter.

Bookmark and Share
Get Your FREE FierceWireless Email Newsletter:

Comments (8) | Post a comment
More stories about Wireless Access   Smartphone  

Comments

mark, agree this makes a lot of sense. to some extent this can be done in GSM by moving the SIM to different devices, and is apparently quite common in other parts of the world.

as

Mark,
Thanks for your article - you make a number of insightful observations. The problem, however, stems from the fact that wireless MNOs continue to rely on a handful of legacy billing vendors that grew up serving the "old" telco model. These arcane rating & billing systems absolutely stifle pricing innovation. Ask any product manager. Changes in pricing structure are met with "it will cost $XM and will take 12, 24, 36 months". Further, the billign cost structure assumes substantial revenue streams. With new services and offers, it is often unclear if there IS any revenue stream.

If telcos expect to compete against the new entrants, like cloud computing providers, they need to completely rethink their rating & billing strategies and place a premium on pricing and packaging flexibility.

Mark,

Great ideas on pricing innovation. I agree and have thought of some of them for quite some time myself. The biggest perceived risk to the wireless operators is not only the expensive and new billing systems required (as correctly pointed out by DMC which is a major drawback) but the security to insure shared plans aren't compromised and shared beyond the intended group.

I could envision a cottage industry of hackers selling hacked passwords for pennies on the dollar leaving the data share plan owner holding the bag and the carrier writing it off.

Its easy to contain a single plan to a single device in current OSS/BSS systems but once you start using soft password access as a means to control plan use by several devices or individuals, the security becomes difficult and costly.

SIM chips help that as the embedded code is far more secure but its a hassle and impractical to keep moving a physical chip from device to device especially if shared among different individuals in different locations at the same time.

Secure and simple plan sharing alternatives to passwords and physical SIMs also need to be devised otherwise the wireless carriers will never join on board.

Mark, Good article trying to point out the need for User centric charging rather than per-service and per device, per network-type charging.

Yes, the operator has legacy billing systems and they are all moving to Convergent billing into Account Centric billing which actually matches the User-Centric charging.

However, the "old habits" of charging for EVERYTHING that they possibly can get away with" are still a well entrenched belief. There are marketing directors who felt, they will change when they "have to" rather than changing to improve service quality and effective revenue volumes and good margin.

On the consumer side, to have multiple devices that map to a single account without fumbling for SIM cards, smart cards or any physical cards are an evolving challenge for the device makers and software providers alike. We will get there and to accelerate User-centric charging will give that momentum a serious kick.

"I'd like to see" - cute. You are stating a lot of the newer business models mentioned by Sprint and Clearwire.

IMO Sprint has not made steps in this direction. An example of this is the Samsung Instinct which functions perfectly for PAM (phone as modem)-and I know because I have seen it work in person- but which Sprint claims won't support this feature. The reason? Sprint cant tell the difference between when the phone is simply accessing the internet and when it is being used as a modem. Therefore, they can't charge a user for tethering unless the customer admits it or overuses their data. I am not a network engineer but I would speculate that, based on inference from the example of sprint, the wireless carriers of today do not have the sort of deep packet inspection technology-among other things- that is necessary for them to even begin to build out a system from which they could then bill an end user set up like this article describes. I think the wireless companies better wise up within the next few years before they get left behind.

How about the Victoria Secret models? That's what our industry needs.

And you don't need to worry about billing systems with them.

I see a few addiditonal areas of opportunity in billing programs. The ability to "Pool" the 5GB Laptop data card program, instead of each user getting their own 5GB allowance, they all contribute 5GB into a corporate pool. This would work the same as corporate pooling for voice minutes. The next opportunity relates to international roaming for voice and data usage. The carriers have the ability to leverage their scale to create a super consortium program, similiar to the early days of cellular. If international pricing was more attractive then usage and total revenue would increase.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

What is 2 + 77?
To combat spam, please solve the math question above.