Should Cable Operators Offer Wireless? - At least one Wall Street stock jock thinks it's a dumb idea...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Should Cable Operators Offer Wireless?
At least one Wall Street stock jock thinks it's a dumb idea...
(old news - 09:25AM Tuesday Dec 09 2008)
tags: Video · competition · business · wireless · cable · telco · VoIP · bundles · TVIP · cellular
If you remember, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts was never really sold on offering wireless, aka the fourth component on top of TV, data and VOIP in a "quadruple play" offering to consumers. That's despite participating in a group that paid $2.4 billion for broadband wireless spectrum, and now doling out more than a billion to help Clearwire deploy Mobile WiMax. At least one Wall Street analyst agrees with Roberts; Craig "network upgrades are for ninnies" Moffett making a lot of noise this week about how the quadruple play is an idiotic and unnecessary move for cable operators:

"The power of bundles, after all, has little if anything to do with what customers want,” Moffett wrote today in a research report. "And it has nothing whatsoever to do with what competitors are offering. Bundles are about the network. Bundles are about supply, not demand. The power of the bundle arises from the marginal costs of delivery. In other words, it's the network, stupid."
Moffett does seem really keen on Cablevision's plan to spend $300 million on a combination project that involves upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0 -- but also offering free Wi-Fi to all of their customers.
"Their model is to pay for the WiFi network by, well, giving it away," Moffett said. "The $300 million of capital spending required to build it, and the modest operating costs to run it, can be paid for with just a small uplift in market share – either gained or retained – in their wired broadband service. At a an ARPU of $35 per month and 80% contribution margins for wired broadband, it would take only 160,000 incremental subscribers – just 3.6% share of their cable footprint – to earn a 10% return on investment."
Of course, this is the same guy who thinks FiOS is doomed to failure and Qwest's plan to milk copper is the pinnacle of telecom achievement, both driven by a lack of vision and lust for immediate returns. Other analysts aren't quite as quick to poo-poo cable operators bundling wireless, noting that operations like Pivot failed because they simply weren't very good. Cox apparently doesn't agree with Moffett -- the now private cable operator recently announcing they plan to become an EVDO (and potentially LTE) wireless carrier sometime within the next few years.

Related:
  1. Free Cablevision Wi-Fi To Offer VoIP, Video
  2. Tuesday Morning Links
  3. Thursday Morning Links
  4. Wednesday Evening Links
  5. Friday Evening Links
  6. Tuesday Evening Links
  7. Wednesday Evening Links
  8. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
Links: New Topic
Forums »

kamm @ 9th Dec 09:35AM:
Why do I feel "analysts" are almost ALWAYS clueless as hell?

I mean I knew a few, they were in the top 10 of the most ridiculously ill-educated yet highly opinionated people I've ever met. Full of cliches and I-will-say-something-else-just-for-the-sake-of-saying-something-else...

...I am sure there are real, decent ones but why they never get to speak? :)
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]

reply
ScottMo @ 9th Dec 10:01AM:
Re: Why do I feel "analysts" are almost ALWAYS clueless as hell?

You never hear the decent ones because they don't make outlandishly stupid claims like the big-mouths. Big outlandish claims are what drive headlines like the one we're reading on DSLR. If an analyst were to say cable companies should offer DOCIS 3.0 and expand their offerings to keep customers believing in the value of their subscription, then we'd all agree, yawn, and move on.

But wait! Here's a guy who thinks short-term profits are better than long-term vision. Wow! What does he have to say? Forego upgrades and keep the money - which results in fatter short-term profits and a big bonus to the analyst for being "right". And since he's got lots of money, he must know what he's talking about. Which he does, as long as you don't care about the future.
reply
Kearnstd @ 9th Dec 10:16AM:
Re: Why do I feel "analysts" are almost ALWAYS clueless as hell?

short term profits vs long term vision is what has hurt all too many US corporations. their investors ask why spend billions and have no ROI for 10 years when we can spend a few million and get an ROI on a subpar product in 3 years.(i kinda feel this way about AT&T's Uverse, it doesnt really seem to have a fighting chance once cable goes fully DOCSIS3 3.0 and SDV, while FiOS in the end could end up more profitable for verizon even if they went full deployment network wide)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

reply
maartena @ 9th Dec 10:18AM:
Unless...

...they bond together so that they can offer nationwide coverage, I think it is a stupid idea.

If they would work together, it may work. But I live on the edge of TWC (I have TWC) and Cox territory, and I would not want to drive down to south county and find out my cell no longer has a signal. :D

In any case, diversity is not a bad thing. It isn't bad for your 401k, and you don't want to throw your media and telecom connections in one basket either.

I have TV and Internet through TWC.
I have Phone and Cell Phone through AT&T.

And see no good reason to change that.
--
"We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope" - Barack Obama, 2008.

reply
JSRoman @ 9th Dec 10:26AM:
Moffett is an idiot

Wireless has been the one growth area for VZ and AT&T and has somewhat helped with drastic drop in landlines. What does he think is going to happen to all those cable voip subs once people get use to not having a home phone and go wireless? It is imperative cable get into wireless to keep some of those subs that will go without a landline in the future.

I can't believe people pay that guy.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil

reply
ARGONAUT @ 9th Dec 10:38AM:
Re: Moffett is an idiot

said by JSRoman :

Wireless has been the one growth area for VZ and AT&T and has somewhat helped with drastic drop in landlines. What does he think is going to happen to all those cable voip subs once people get use to not having a home phone and go wireless? It is imperative cable get into wireless to keep some of those subs that will go without a landline in the future.

I can't believe people pay that guy.
I second that!
--
PentiumD 930 DC 3.0GHz - 4GB PC2-4200 - 300GB SATA - BFG Nvidia 7950GT OC 512MB
- Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600(1101MCE) - Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit

reply
anon @ 9th Dec 10:42AM:
Re: Why do I feel "analysts" are almost ALWAYS clueless as hell?

Wireless is going to be the way to go at some point.

People don't want to be connected to coax or twisted pair.
Forever! What is their plan for the future?

Technology is always changing.
Oh thats right lets just keep using very old technology and suck as much cash outta of the customer as we can.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 9th Dec 10:44AM:
Re: Unless...

Cox would have their own network in their footprint and outside of their footprint they'd roam on Sprint.

It would be national coverage just roaming after you get outside of your coverage area. If you went to another coverage area of Sprint's say here in Cleveland, you'd go back on to the Cox network from Sprint.

The same as you do not with AT&T. No coverage from ATT you roam on T-Mobile.
reply
Titus Pullo @ 9th Dec 11:48AM:
NO!

CableRape® should be confined to 'cable' period.
--
reply
knightmb @ 9th Dec 12:23PM:
Re: Why do I feel "analysts" are almost ALWAYS clueless as hell?

said by cantstandcables :

Wireless is going to be the way to go at some point.

People don't want to be connected to coax or twisted pair.
Forever! What is their plan for the future?

Technology is always changing.
Oh thats right lets just keep using very old technology and suck as much cash outta of the customer as we can.
Agreed and that is what my company is capitalizing on. When I talk about wireless, I don't talk about Satellite, but ground based wireless. Wires and fiber are great for the infrastructure, but there is no reason wireless can't be the last mile.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data

reply
battleop @ 9th Dec 12:48PM:
Re: Unless...

Roaming agreements will take care of that problem. That's how the current cell phone carriers handle the same problem.
reply
tshirt @ 9th Dec 03:09PM:
Re: Moffett is an idiot

said by JSRoman :

......It is imperative cable get into wireless to keep some of those subs that will go without a landline in the future.
It maybe a good move at some point, the question is , is now the right momment.
It will only work when the can get inter-carrier coverage i.e. for best effect the cable industry must work as one body. The second factor is waiting until all have wide spread/univeral D3 rollout. and the third is waiting for LTE to ... evolve.
given the current economy, and the bigger push towards spending on D3 (absolutely nessesary to protect their market share) and the history of limited intersystem cooperation. probably holding off on the wireless/frontal attack on the Telco's for a couple years is a wise move.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't begin thinking/talking to each other about it.

There's my analysis, for free ;)
reply
Skippy25 @ 10th Dec 12:56AM:
Re: Why do I feel "analysts" are almost ALWAYS clueless as hell?

I for one have absolutely no desire to use wireless for my last mile.

Wireless is highly overated 95% of the time when it comes to internet connections.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC