Carriers dig deeper hole with lack of innovative 4G LTE pricing, Ovum says

Services

Wireless carriers around the world are digging themselves into a deeper hole by neglecting to experiment with innovative pricing models for 4G LTE services. While consumers have exhibited concern surrounding tiered data plans and bandwidth throttling, Ovum believes such models are necessary to combat the growing capacity crunch plaguing cellular service providers. This crunch, of course, is serious enough that AT&T is hoping to soon $39 billion in order to acquire T-Mobile USA and use the carrier’s precious spectrum for its 4G LTE network build-out. Smartphone and mobile broadband users are pumping more data over wireless networks than ever before, and speedier 4G LTE service only stands to exacerbate the situation. Additionally, carriers are missing the opportunity to find new ways to squeeze more revenue out of this new premium high-speed service. “We looked at the LTE pricing strategies of operators in Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the US, and were disappointed with our findings,” Ovum analyst Nicole McCormick said in a statement. “LTE provides operators with the opportunity to experiment with new and innovative pricing models, which allows them to find the best way of deriving revenues from the premium service. However, most operators have not grasped this opportunity. Instead, LTE tariffs in the regions Ovum analysed are dominated by unlimited offerings and large data buckets, which can be problematic.” Ovum’s full press release follows below.

Lack of innovation in LTE pricing models, report finds

5 August 2011 | Published by Ovum

Operators that offer high-speed mobile broadband technology LTE are failing to deliver innovative pricing models, according to Ovum.

In a new report*, the independent telecoms analyst firm claims that there is a lack of new and innovative LTE (long term evolution) tariffs, which is a missed opportunity for operators given that LTE is a new service in the eyes of consumers.

Nicole McCormick, Ovum senior analyst and author of the report, commented: “We looked at the LTE pricing strategies of operators in Europe, Asia-Pacific, and theUS, and were disappointed with our findings.

“LTE provides operators with the opportunity to experiment with new and innovative pricing models, which allows them to find the best way of deriving revenues from the premium service.

“However, most operators have not grasped this opportunity. Instead, LTE tariffs in the regions Ovum analysed are dominated by unlimited offerings and large data buckets, which can be problematic.”

According to the report, unlimited data plans for LTE can present significant problems for operators, especially if they are accompanied by a lenient fair usage policy.

McCormick commented: “Operators should not offer unlimited LTE tariffs without some sort of deterrent as they could have an impact on the quality of the service given LTE’s data-intensive nature. However, we note that some leading operators –Verizon Wireless,SKTelecom, NTT DoCoMo and LG U+ – have steered clear of unlimited LTE offerings despite offering such packages in the 3G arena.”

The report also found that charging high premiums for LTE is unsustainable in the long-term due to competitive pressures in the industry and increased migration to 4G services. McCormick added: “Operators will need to be careful not to alienate high-end customers that have paid a premium for a fast, high-quality service by reducing LTE tariffs too quickly or drastically.”

26 Comments
  • Anonymous

    So they should work on finding new ways to suck us dry?

    • https://sites.google.com/site/barry99705/ barry99705

      That’s how I read it.

      • Anonymous

        ..unless i’m missing something to?

        i can’t believe these bloodsuckers.

  • zukidrvr

    “AT&T is hoping to soon $39 billion in order to acquire T-Mobile USA”
    Huh? Editor, get to work.

  • Anonymous

    Ovum is stupid.
    The next thing in carrier pricing/service plans will be family/multi device data plans. 

  • Anonymous

    I think you accidentally a few words.

  • Anonymous

    If the FCC & congress don’t let this merger pass, they will have regulated us back into the dinosaur age! We need better plans & they only way to get them is with an expansion in spectrum/bandwith + a lot more towers.

    • Anonymous

      You are absolutely delusional.  If you support the AT&T T-Mobile merger, you’re an idiot. Objectively. Not the “in my opinion” type.

      • SBMobile

        I’m not sure what you’re ranting for! I’ve been an AT&T customer for over 15 years & a 3G user for 3 years. The iPhone using the 3G signal has congested the AT&T’s networks for 3 years. I use my data & would like a better rate, along with faster upload/download speeds. If you can think of a better way to make that happen, I’m all ears. It’s easy to say someone is stupid when you have no real evidence to support your statements, which DOES make it your opinion! T-Mobiles going broke, month by month, but has the towers/spectrum to get 4G/LTE on AT&T sooner than later. This merger will literally be the difference between shitty & good/decent service. AT&T’s going to get the spectrum/bandwidth eventually & T-Mobile will go broke eventually, so I don’t see the point of the whining. All of the carriers used to be AT&T at some point. If they can’t stay solvent, why shouldn’t the parent-company be ablt to re-acquire them?!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMPLR2MMJAVZ3W62HDWBPP25QE TheDude

        Easy – how about leave ATT.  Starting this fall every carrier in the US should have the i-phone.  Then you can go somewhere else.  That is called competition.

      • Anonymous

        Well sprint kind of did tell At& T what their second option was besides acquiring tmobile so that was already laid on the table. Honestly for a company that isn’t bigger than verizon, how could they be so slow and verizon is way bigger than them. At& T is simply trying to find the easy way out. They were already acquired by cingular so why take tmobile. Granted tmobile is dying and losing the race but why not let a small company take them…. Not the only competitor they had.

  • Rob Meyer

    Silly wireless companies.. you could be raping the consumer EVEN more. Youre doing it wrong!

    I wanna bitch slap this whole firm from the ceo to it’s mail boys for saying shit like this. $300 for a 4g handset (charge and presumably bionic) is steep enough as it is. I’m not dropping $400 on a phone because it surfs the web faster. I’m happy that vzw didn’t rape us on the 3g vs 4g data price merging, but truthfully, I would feel better paying $5 more a month for 4g then $400 upfront on a phone.

  • Anonymous

    For the wireless companies, “innovation” is tiered data and throttling at the same time. The guy who thought that one up is probably neck deep in hookers and blow.

    If you want to impress us and get us to use word of mouth — you know, the best kind of advertising — you could try something like a reasonable amount per megabyte. Think about it. Then cackle and go back to figuring out how you can keep charging us more for less. That’s the way to satisfy a customer.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMPLR2MMJAVZ3W62HDWBPP25QE TheDude

    I think you guys are missing the point.  I don’t think the author is trying to promote charging everyone more.  he is just saying they should try something different.  i totally agree.  I am sick of paying $30 for unlimited for my wife and myselft ($60 in total) for 3G access when we hardly use data.  It’s absurd.  If you use little, you should pay little.  And now Verizon with its tiered plans.  Come on.  Their lowest tier is a joke.  They set it so low that no one will buy it.  So you are once again forced to pay $30.  If you go over you get dinged $10 or so.  Even if it is just 1MB over.   These companies need to re-evaluate their pricing structures.  It is most unfair.  Hopefully the author is a proponent of something that charges the heavy users more and the light users much less.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMPLR2MMJAVZ3W62HDWBPP25QE TheDude

    Easy – how about leave ATT.  Starting this fall every carrier in the US should have the i-phone.  Then you can go somewhere else.  That is called competition. 

  • Anonymous

    I just paid $ 23.86 for an iPhone and my girlfriend loves her Dell laptop that we got for $ 38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 42 inch LED TV to my boss for $ 665 which only cost me $ 62,81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, GrabPenny.com

  • Anonymous

    Sprint of course isn’t the best. Where I am it kind of is without the 4g, but 10 bucks for unlimited is a bang for my buck. Everyone complains about the 10 dollar fee but really don’t look at what everyone else is paying and not getting to use half the shit they paid for. I’m not paying 30 bucks for 2gb and then if using too much of it, to get throttled down!?!? Or better yet overage charged for it? No… Eventually sprint will go down that line but i get to use the most out of everything I pay for, for the fraction of the price. I feel bad for everybody else

  • Anonymous

    The feds need to also make them clarify more than “up to XXXX” speeds. My 3G speeds have been shit lately, edge rates, and there’s nothing that can be done. There should be a min speed rate that they must meet.

  • http://twitter.com/WillieFDiazSF William Diaz ✔

    I completely disagree. Only ONE US based company offers “Unlimited” 4G and thats the deal of Sprint/Clearwire – considering it has the worst coverage of any and all 4G networks, and also some of the slowest potential speeds in the areas it covers, I couldnt imagine them getting away with trying to offer anything BUT an Unlimited plan. Charging people more or throttling or capping data usage for terrible coverage and slower than advertised speeds is just wrong anyway.
    On the flip side companies like T-Mobile HSPA+ which have added quadruple capacity, and have actually shed customers might feel better offering something “unlimited” that doesnt throttle or have a cap, simply because they are the only other major GSM operator and have to find some competition in their larger more robust faster than Sprint network.
    Companies like Verizon and their LTE are designed and well capable of handling larger amounts of data and should offer lower prices and sliding tiered data if they are going to go that route. 
    I disagree that not only does this article present that unlimited 4G data is wrong and bad, but goes on to insinuate that charging more for smaller data rate plans is better. WRONG! 

  • GZ

    Bend over and without any K-Y :(  

  • Glass Onion

    So basically Ovum is a shill for the carriers, lamenting the fact the US carriers are not fully utilizing their ability to further gouge their customers for more revenue.  I’m thankful that I got my Droid Incredible when Verizon still had unlimited data.  I will make sure I don’t make any changes to my plan that will require a change to their tiered data.  But who knows how long that will last – I’m sure eventually they will take away even the right to keep existing plans through future handset upgrades.  Too bad Sprint isn’t a stronger player, since their truly unlimited data could provide pressure on Verizon and AT&T-mobile to offer the same.  Alas, soon there will only be 2 strong contenders, with Sprint a poor running 3rd place competitor.

  • Anonymous

    Umm. I’m wondering where the source picture came from fo this article. The writer is talking about AT&T’s need to gobble up the T-Mobile Spectrum of 4G LTE, continues on to cite the source as saying service providers throughout the world have this great opportunity to maximize their potential with these new services.. blah, blah, blah- which is all very entertaining and edifying; however from what I have heard verizon isnt buying up smaller providers, in fact they are expanding their own netowrks at an astonishing rate….

    SO THE WHY is it that I’m offened by the head-line and the ensuing Verizon Wireless picture- to me it seems that there should be a Atrix in that picture based on the assertions of the article…. PLZ change it up

    #WEAKSAUCE
    #THATSWHACK
    #MISREPRESENTTHAT

    ’round my way, kids get beat up for these types of transgressions

    #fixit

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5SFD6KPU5YRVLISL2J6IOMX2FI Dennis Sargent

    I paid $22.85 for an iPhone 4-32GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $674 which only cost me $62.81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, CentHub.com

  • http://twitter.com/beez1717 beez1717

    I think that what the cell phone companies should be doing is what the cable industry is doing: Make people pay for more speed. I think that’s only fair. And when you get your data you get unlimited, unles you somehow manage to download 250 GB of data in one month.

    By the way, has anyone heard of DIDO (Distributed Input Distributed Output)? If it really can work then I’m thinking that if we DON’T get unlimited data then we should get mad since everyone is getting a full speed connection and there is no “people are using too much data and is screwing our network!” situation.

  • Anonymous

    So they want carriers to bend us farther over the table eh? Fuck that!

  • CMC

    What they should be doing is forgetting about consumption-based pricing, but rather move to rate-based pricing just like how (most) home broadband connections are.  Offer basic service with speeds up to lets say 512, offer a higher tier at 1, and higher tiers progressively.  Power users will gladly pay for higher speeds, whereas basic users wouldn’t be forced into paying the higher prices for something they don’t need.  Simply throwing everyone into the same speed bracket is just useless as the quality of service at that point, is nonexistent.  

    I think this makes much more sense than consumption-based pricing as the carriers are not “producing” the data packets.  They are not paying per packet, so why should they be charging for it?  They ARE paying for the rate at which the packets travel.  To keep innovation alive, this is the model that carriers need to move towards.  And it clearly can be done as the duopoly is already stating that they will begin rate-limiting people who use the network more than just a little bit.  

blog comments powered by Disqus