tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post36049766972973421..comments2024-03-20T22:57:03.923+00:00Comments on Dean Bubley's Disruptive Wireless: FMC... does it break the interconnect charging model?Dean Bubleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-5811739128525444192007-03-14T16:27:00.000+00:002007-03-14T16:27:00.000+00:00Good points Dean! I would add to that the regulato...Good points Dean! I would add to that the regulatory "holiday" operators still enjoy to this day.<BR/><BR/>What I mean by that is that national telcos, back in the days when national telcos were still mostly state owned and their mobile network coverage still far from complete, benefited from regulatory leniency (i.e. they were allowed huge margins to cover the cost of deploying these networks).<BR/><BR/>Fast forward to today (around 20 years later), and those same networks have now been fully deployed and coverage has been excellent for years now.<BR/><BR/>Even if you take into account the investment required handle the huge rise in call volumes, it pales into comparison to the investment needed to build this network in the first place. So, VOD's Capex was an average of 20% of sales between 1991 and 2001, but only 16% of sales since then. <BR/><BR/>So... they spend less on the network, but their margins are still astronomically high: avg EBITDA % 1992 to 2001 was 43%. EBITDA % in 2006? 43%.<BR/><BR/>So operators now have huge returns as well as huge margins! And consumers are paying for this by proxy of interconnect pricing designed by the Soprano family! Talk about toothless regulators!<BR/><BR/>So, thank you Ms Redding for putting in motion what should have happened long ago: price controls to end mobile operators pricing cartels.Chris Seilernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00528622510249353855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-6772179128315118532007-03-13T17:41:00.000+00:002007-03-13T17:41:00.000+00:00Surely the "moral basis" (ugly phrasing there, Dea...Surely the "moral basis" (ugly phrasing there, Dean) is dependent on what proportion of ALL calls cases 1) and 2) represent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-64723973372811317632007-03-08T13:23:00.000+00:002007-03-08T13:23:00.000+00:00Readers in the North America may be more familiar ...Readers in the North America may be more familiar with the term <B>access charge</B> to describe the same fee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-60557762918557413872007-03-08T11:52:00.000+00:002007-03-08T11:52:00.000+00:00Good point Dean. Throw in higher "blended" termina...Good point Dean. Throw in higher "blended" termination charges for 3G networks and the whole issue becomes even more murky. The voicemail question is interesting: Presumably the majority of recipients retrieve messages with a free call - unless, of course, they are roaming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-91752132473461049872007-03-08T05:47:00.000+00:002007-03-08T05:47:00.000+00:00Shhhh, don't tell Vivianne Reding! If you look at ...Shhhh, don't tell Vivianne Reding! If you look at global costs of terminating on mobile networks, Europe is (generally) ridiculously high. <BR/>Seriously, though, if interconnect is 'cost-based' - as it's supposed to be, then there is no justification for the abnormally high termination fees.<BR/>On the voicemail issue; would it be possible for the other operator to know that the call was redirected to voicemail (as opposed to any other number). The pricing model would have to be based on statistical evidence rather than routing information.Paul Jardinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14174519230653332835noreply@blogger.com