With growing momentum, wireline incumbent carriers have achieved general consensus that copper-based technologies should reach end of life, the sooner the better. The incumbents emphasize how wireless can satisfy consumers’ desire for tetherlessness, free to roam and motor without loss of voice and data connectivity.
So far so
good. We should not dismiss clear
comparative disadvantages in a wireless replacement, but who wants to stand in
the way of “progress?”
Nevertheless,
you might want to join me in assessing the consequences of a wireless-only
environment, particularly for a future marketplace that combines voice and data
services. We might welcome the added
versatility of voice access via a single handset anytime and anywhere. But what about the incumbents’ less visible
campaign to make wireless the predominant and likely only option, particularly in many rural locations lacking access to
fiber optic, or hybrid copper/fiber, broadband services. If wireless voice evaporates, so would
wireline Digital Subscriber Line data service and any other type of data
delivery via now “abandoned” telephone company copper.
A
compulsory migration to wireless data services presents a far less attractive
value proposition. We might tolerate mobile
video access via a small screen, but how would you feel if a larger, higher
resolution screen was available? Do
incumbents really want to force consumers to abandon the best available screen
at home, the high definition and soon to be ultra-high definition television
set, so that the meter can continue to run on small screen wireless devices?
I assume
that consumers would rather watch video content on the largest screen available
with the best resolution. I also assume
that wireless data subscriptions will continue to offer metered access to
rather skimpy amounts of monthly data downloading and streaming at rates far in
excess of wireline options on a per downloaded gigabyte basis. One more assumption: just as wireless
subscribers migrate to home Wi-Fi options to avoid running up the meter, future
wireless broadband subscribers will not tolerate being bound to a wireless-only
option that could result in triple digit monthly bills.
Please
correct me if I have wrongly assessed the copper retirement scenario. I see a quite viable—if unstoppable—glide
path toward a mostly wireless voice marketplace. I’m not sure whether cable television
operators really care much about offering wired voice telephony.
What I have
problems envisioning is a wireless data marketplace that denies consumers
options for using the best available video display screen, the opportunity to replace
vastly more expensive wireless streaming with unlicensed options like Wi-Fi and
substantial narrowing in the cost of broadband access between wired and
wireless options. Are incumbent
telephone companies unintentionally bolstering the prospects for a non-mobile broadband
monopoly controlled by cable television operators, or does 5G wireless make unmetered
broadband a distinct possibility?
