Reinventing Telecom Tariff

Reinventing Telecom Tariff

#telecommunications providers have been struggling with a lot. They are forced to continue to spend huge CAPEX to upgrade the networks to add 5G and Edge capabilities but are their Tariffs likely to go up? And are the Tariffs correct? What can be a better way to charge the consumers and still stay fair? Read to the end to find some potential options!

The nature of the service has changed significantly over time. Are they more than Pipe-Providers? Many forayed into cloud and content while some are trying even now. Some even sold Insurances and Train Tickets. The attempts to build an App Store were made too.

Some have quickly come to conclusion that the main purpose of a #telecommunications provider is to offer connectivity and state that clearly in their #Purpose Statement while others may still take some time to come to terms with it.

Connect for Good
BT Purpose & 2030 Ambition

BT clearly states that their purpose is to "Connect for Good"

Our Purpose is to Connect
Vodafone Purpose

And Vodafone is also quite clear that their purpose is to "Connect".

In short, over time it has become abundantly clear that the main service that the #telecommunications provider offers is #connectivity.

Off late this connectivity has also been evolving, with primary packages being moved to "Data" while voice services are getting bundled in. With #internet, #sdwan and #sase becoming prominent the #telecommunications providers are settling into their new roles.

  • I mentioned in a previous article that #telecommunications providers are primarily in the business of #transporting bits. Both the #mobile consumers and #fixedbroadband consumers are just buying a "data package".
  • All services are consumed through apps from the cloud operators. Someone else provides the service over this transport. and "Net neutrality" means #telecommunications providers can't have preferential treatment for services riding their transport.
  • 5G is going to be just an expensive upgrade by the operators to help deliver the valuable content to the consumers. They will make even lesser money on a per gig basis than they did with 4G.

In fact the situation for #telecommunications providers is even more tougher than a transport/logistics/courier company! Why?

When the consumer buys a data package, the operator has to commit to download and upload speed and download / upload volume per month. It does not matter, if the consumer is downloading a content from the same city or from halfway across the world!

Imagine Fedex charging a uniform rate irrespective of the destination of the package! Imagine you are sending a package by courier within the same city or from India to America at the same rate! imagine taking an #uber from anywhere to anywhere at same price!

Why is the telecom operator action irrationally! Despite being in the business of transport, why don't they charge based on the distance the packet has to travel!

  • Because End Point Pricing has been prevalent for Internet services.

Should this continue or is their potential to change? What should a Telecom Operator do?

  • When the department of telecommunication published the tariff for leased lines, it was based on the speed of the connection as well as the distance between two end points. The telecom tariff should also include this. The packets that travel <100 km should be treated differently that those that travel 100<distance<250km and so on! Also packets that cross international borders should not be same price!
  • When government builds highways, they charge a "Toll" for express connectivity! So what stops #telecommunications providers to charge for better connectivity? Network Slices? Differentiated service?

Let me know what you think!

Note: The opinions expressed in this article are my personal opinions and have no connection to my present or previous employments.

Well said JP and I like fedex example and it is so true that depite we add foundational value as telco we need to have new thinking of revenue by both connectivity and cloud vertical applications.

Rajeev Ranjan Singh

OSS system Solution Architect,System Integrator, Lead Solution Designer,TMForum ODA Certified,Digitalization, ServiceNow, SAFe 5 Agilist,CSM,Prince 2,Six Sigma, ITIL Certified

2 年

Interesting insight Sir. I had an another view of tarrif based on domestic/commercial usage just like all other services.Unable to figure if my view comes across net neutrality. Need your suggestion sir

Vivek Gupta

20+ years of exposure in Sales, Sales Operation,Key account management

2 年

Which business generate 50% EBIDTA?

回复
Ankkit Jain

Sales Enabler | Partner Alliances | GeMs | Telecom/ IT Sales

2 年

Interesting perspective. To add, there are two aspects to telecom transformation happening today in India. One is the infrastructure upgrade and the other is market/service penetration. Infra upgrades irrespective of industry domain, will require additional capex. However, the second aspect is unique since it is directly connected to the Digital growth of an economy especially with the growing economy of ours. Eg - UPI Change in tariffs is a direct cost to the user and hence is inversely proportional to user penetration. Reliance impact on mobile subscribers can't be ruled out in any sense (keeping aside the nuances). Even today, telecom services in India are the cheapest in the world. Another aspect of making money could be revenue sharing from all the OTT/application service providers who use the ISP network. It's more like a toll to use the highways built. Eg - Google search engine, youtube, Netflix etc. do revenue share of money made via using ISP network. The tweak would be, it won't come at a direct cost but as an indirect cost to the user (subscription charges may increase).

Andres Barrios

Network Services, Solutions Architect at Ciena

2 年

The fundamental function of the Transport Networks is the controlled transfer of the characteristic (and/or adapted) information over (subnetwork) connections between geographically distant source and destination points. This transport function is different than the one provided by the Transport Layer in the OSI and TCP/IP models; here, data transfer (as datagram, packets, frames) is monitored over a segment (i.e., a virtual or abstracted connection) from a user to a server ports in the Application Layer in said reference models. User data usage/rate can be metered in the transport layer of the OSI and TCP/IP models, but is it proper or justifiable to charge the user for the distance to reach, say, a distant server? I disagree. For example, an OCh or NMC is specified in terms of an optical bandwidth (with its associated rate) and a topology (the latter including all MC, OMS, and spans traversed by said channel). Hence, the cost of such distance is implicit in the price of the OCh paid by the client (e.g., digital OTN, OE, MLS, IP) network. That OCH cost is then transferred by the client network to their subscribers.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了