The following Note is the first of a two-part series assessing some of last year’s key market developments and projecting their impact into 2014. We also offer our thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for wireless carriers this year and consider how competition will unfold in the months ahead. Part Two will look at what the year ahead may hold for devices, networks and spectrum.


Looking back, 2013 was a year of transformation in which several major transactions enabled the carriers to reshape and reinforce themselves for a Final Four competition for leadership in the U.S. market. Looking ahead, 2014 shapes up as a year of intensified competition in which carriers test a host of new options for relations with their customers and also step up a fierce contest to establish the superiority of their LTE network. Already, just weeks into the new year, AT&T and T-Mobile have raised and counter-raised with competing offers of cash to convince customers to ditch their current carrier and switch. And, Sprint has revised its plan for accelerated handset upgrades and launched a new Framilies plan to let larger numbers of customers come together and qualify for lower group rates.

Hanging over this continuing tussle to attract and retain customers is a parallel battle over the terms of the 2015 spectrum auctions as well as renewed speculation about a possible merger of a revitalized T-Mobile and spectrum-rich Sprint. The potential entry of DISH and the fate of LightSquared are wildcards that have the potential to reshape the current wireless market depending on how the two companies decide to proceed. The pre-paid market, roiled in 2013 by forced deactivations because of questionable Lifeline signups, bears watching as well. We expect Tracfone will help lead this segment back up in 2014.

As we gaze through the crystal ball, we see a landscape greatly altered from 12 months before. Repositioned as the snarky “uncarrier”, T-Mobile has pushed the market in new directions by decoupling the handset and service components of customer contracts. It also has repeatedly compelled competitors to respond to its redesigned service plans with new offerings of their own. As we open 2014, T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T are in the market with plans that could signal the beginning of the end for the handset subsidies that have fueled consumers’ enthusiasm for high-end, but pricey smartphones.

Among the open questions for 2014 is whether consumers would rather pay full price for their handsets, likely financed over time, in exchange for lower monthly service costs or do they prefer the longstanding subsidy model. We wait to see the degree to which each carrier will work to move consumers to a financing-model.


Changed Landscape

As it is, the restructured T-Mobile and Sprint are strategically better positioned than a year ago. After their own talks about a possible merger flamed out to start 2013, the two companies found other partners. T-Mobile struck first in a “reverse acquisition” of Metro PCS. The transaction shifted 9 million Metro PCS customers to T-Mobile, providing an immediate boost in revenues, and also bolstered T-Mobile’s company’s spectrum inventory. The reverse acquisition mechanism, which enables a previously private company (T-Mobile, in this case) to quickly list its stock on public exchanges by acquiring a publicly-held company, also created new financial flexibility and liquidity for T-Mobile and its parent, Deutsche Telekom.

Bolstered by new assets and under the in-your-face leadership style of CEO John Legere, the company shook up the competitive landscape with a host of new offerings and recorded substantial gains in customers. The company’s image has been transformed into that of a feisty and effective challenger, the brand looks fresh, and Mr. Legere has a knack for grabbing headlines. The company has now launched four iterations of “uncarrier” to continually stoke new enthusiasm. The solid investment in its network as well as the media spot light has brought T-Mobile back into consideration for a growing number of consumers. T-Mobile will continue to play the “uncarrier” tune until it no longer works; the difficulty will be to keep finding things that upset consumers and can be profitably recast by T-Mobile.

Sprint also moved in a new direction, ceding its independent status by selling a majority stake to Softbank to get the financial backing it needed to build out of its LTE network. Bankrolled by Softbank, Sprint added to its spectrum holdings by winning a bidding war against Charlie Ergen and DISH Network and acquiring the half of Clearwire it did not already own. With the two moves, Sprint eliminated the ongoing distraction of dealing with an independent Clearwire and emerged a spectrum powerhouse with twice as much spectrum as any other carrier. Toward the end of the year, Sprint acquired yet more spectrum by buying licenses from Revol Wireless, which closed up shop on January 16, 2014. Sprint has since targeted Revol’s customers with special offers from its prepaid brand Boost Mobile. Tactically, however, Sprint is in a difficult situation as its Network Vision project is woefully behind schedule and network quality has suffered.

AT&T and Verizon also moved to shore up their competitive positions. AT&T snapped up Leap Wireless, which sells the Cricket Brand, for $1.2 billion to add key spectrum and expand its position in the prepaid, non-contract market niche. After ten years of on-and-off talks with Vodafone, Verizon spent $130 billion to buy out the British company’s 45 percent share in Verizon Wireless and capture the efficiencies from running its wireline and wireless businesses as an integrated company in which strategies are set solely by Verizon management.

Tracfone also beefed up last year, acquiring a number of prepaid carriers in a market niche troubled by some overzealous carriers’ abuse of the Lifeline program. The acquisitions should pay off for Tracfone this year as it digests last year’s feast.

2014 should see fewer transactions – the opportunities simply do not exist for a repeat of last year. But one big deal is possible as Sprint continues to eye T-Mobile and news reports indicate it has lined up bank financing just in case. However, regulatory approval would not be a sure thing. Both the FCC and the Justice Department have previously suggested a desire for four or more national competitors in the marketplace and the resurgence of T-Mobile as a market driver –as DOJ hoped in opposing the AT&T/T-Mobile transaction in 2011 – would seem to raise an additional barrier to approval. Also, given the recent performance of the two companies, the issue of leadership could complicate talks. It’s possible that Softbank might prefer Legere over current Sprint CEO Dan Hesse to lead a combined company.


Competition Intensifying

The story for last year was T-Mobile’s customer gains after years of net losses. This year, we wait to see whether T-Mobile can maintain its momentum and if Sprint can begin adding to its customer list. Also worth watching is whether Verizon can retain its reputation for having the “best” network, a claim that is increasingly challenged and coveted by all three of its national rivals.

T-Mobile, which got a boost from finally adding the iPhone to its inventory, was the clear 2013 leader in offering new options to consumers. The initial uncarrier program cut monthly charges by $20 and introduced handset financing. The company also shifted most of its customers from service contracts to handset financing contracts that ties them to the carrier until they have paid off the handset, a clever switch that is the virtual equivalent of an early termination fee – but without the complaints. T-Mobile followed with JUMP!, which combines a rapid device trade-in and upgrade plan with traditional handset insurance for a lower rate. A few months later, it added free low-speed international data and texting plus lower-cost international roaming. This rapid-fire innovative pace forced its competitors into catch-up mode, trying to match many of T-Mobile’s innovations. Current indications are that T-Mobile should continue to grow for at least the next six months even without any new uncarrier announcements.

AT&T took aim at T-Mobile and Verizon by lowering its monthly recurring charge by $15 for customers who finance their device, own it outright, or who have had it for more than two years while on contract. Traditionally, AT&T has priced at parity with Verizon Wireless, but the new program drops its prices below Verizon’s for longer-tenured customers and should inhibit churn. The initiative also reduced the price differential with T-Mobile for customers who are not bound by a device financing or service contract. AT&T’s reduction for out-of-contract customers is its best idea so far for keeping its vulnerable feature phone base with the company. It should have help improve their feature phone retention rate, but we doubt it will entirely close that seeping wound.

Though tarnished by a number of large-scale outages of its 4G LTE service, the strength of Verizon’s network has helped it remain the fastest growing contract carrier as the Verizon halo of best network is still intact in the consumer’s mind. Network strength is Verizon’s most significant differentiator and retaining the lead in consumer perceptions about its reliability is vital to its growth strategy. But some metrics suggest the advantage has been slipping.

Recent data from RootMetrics, for example, suggests that AT&T’s LTE is faster than Verizon’s in a majority of markets. The company says, however, that Verizon still has an edge on reliability. When combining those two elements, RootMetrics’ gives AT&T the edge for “combined performance.” The fight for network bragging rights is likely to grow fiercer still as Sprint begins to roll out its super-speed Sprint Spark service. For its part, T-Mobile claims to be the top speed provider in half of its 20 LTE markets based on findings from Speedtest.net and has dramatically expanded its 4G LTE network to cover more than 200 million customers, surpassing Sprint. In the end, the consumers cannot help but be confused by all the contradictory claims.

The increasing capabilities of LTE networks also raises the possibility that one or more wireless providers might aggressively turn to current wireline users as a growth area and pitch them to switch to wireless for all of their broadband needs. AT&T has already announced such a vision and Verizon executives have publically contemplated it. Sprint has more than enough spectrum to make such a pitch and T-Mobile’s recent purchase of 700 MHz spectrum from Verizon brings wireline customers within its reach as well.

AT&T meanwhile must cope with weaker contract growth for handsets, perhaps by building on gains it recorded in tablets last year. During 2013, the company successfully upsold its existing customer base with additional devices. The company also entered the home security and automation business with Digital Life in a significantly more comprehensive and expansive way than any other company. The home security market is notoriously tough to enter due to the difficult approval process in every market it is offered. The company launched 57 markets in 2013 and started doing nationwide broadcast television, setting itself up for growth in 2014.

Sprint spent 2013 in almost perpetual turmoil – making its deal with Softbank, fighting DISH for Clearwire, shutting down its iDEN network and feeding other carrier’s subscriber counts. Network Vision has slowly turned into a nightmare with slow implementation and service degradation, which in turn has led to a reversal in customer opinions of Sprint and contributed to subscriber losses. These losses will continue at least through the remainder of 2014. While Softbank is now on the hunt for T-Mobile and is eager to purchase its smaller rival, it is unlikely that this pursuit will bring Softbank the salvation it apparently is looking for. The odds of winning an approval of such a merger are slim under the current administration, which views the revival of T-Mobile as one of its crowning achievements in promoting wireless competition.

In our view, Sprint might be better advised to get its own house in working order after last year’s tumult and put off a run at T-Mobile for a few years. Longer term, Sprint is pouring Softbank’s money into an upgrade of its LTE network with the intention of overtaking its rivals by 2015 or sooner and touting the newly-claimed technological edge to attract customers. If it can convert that plan to reality, Sprint would be better positioned for a future transaction as the power of two effective challengers combined would have greater upside than a slow mover trying to buy its way to better performance.

On the pre-paid front we see strong growth this year, led by an enlarged Tracfone. The segment started strong in 2013, outpacing post-paid by 10-1 in the early part of the year. But those too-good-to-be-true numbers were inflated by excessive Lifeline signups that the FCC later rolled back. In the end, prepaid net adds went negative as forcible deactivations were higher than adds and contract lines grew again.

 

Innovation and a desire to compete is the basis of success. After years of languishing, T-Mobile has regained its competitive vigor with the reverse acquisition of Metro PCS. The secret of T-Mobile’s success is three pronged:

  • First, the company went ahead and put the $3 billion and spectrum they got from AT&T when that merger went awry and combined it with the Metro PCS spectrum to rapidly build an LTE network in their existing footprint on their existing towers, covering 180 million POPs by September 2013.
  • Simultaneously, T-Mobile announced the Un-Carrier strategy, which was a refresh of the Value Price Plan initiative, to great fanfare. The first phase of Un-Carrier does away with handset subsidies and replaces them with a device installment plan. In essence, for the first 24 months of the plan, a consumer won’t see a change in what they pay. After 24 months, however, the payment goes down to a device-free price, which is about $20 lower—assuming the consumer does not chose to purchase a new device. Considering that Americans purchase on average a new device every 21.7 months, only a few consumers will likely see the lower payment.
  • Third, on July 14, 2013, T-Mobile launched the JUMP program, which allows the consumer to upgrade their device every six months by resetting their device purchase program when they trade-in their device with at no charge. The program, which costs $10 per month, also includes a device insurance program, which previously cost $12 per month. This makes the JUMP program a no-brainer for T-Mobile customers who would have taken the device insurance program anyway. Within days, AT&T and Verizon announced similar programs. Sprint announced its rapid handset program more than two months later, on September 20th.

To gauge the success of T-Mobile’s JUMP program, Recon Analytics conducted a detailed survey using Google Custom Surveys between August 26 and August 30, 2013. Results were immediately accessible to our advisory members.

We found that six weeks after the launch of the program on July 14, 2013, 28.4% of 4,183 respondents were aware of the JUMP program. This is a substantial level of awareness considering the short time the JUMP program was being promoted and the relatively low share of voice that T-Mobile advertising represents in the advertising world. We followed up this question with second multiple-choice question to the 1,002 respondents who were aware of the JUMP program asking them how interested they are in the JUMP program.

Top Line JUMP Survey Results

T-Mobile JUMPs to growth

A couple of things are interesting here. Among the respondents, 28.5% claim they already have JUMP. This percentage is a rough match for the percentage of wireless subscribers who have a device insurance plan. If, indeed, everyone who said they would sign up for JUMP will take up the JUMP plan, then more than half of T-Mobile’s subscribers (50.4%) will be on the JUMP plan. Considering that the JUMP plan is 16% cheaper than the traditional handset insurance plan with is part of JUMP, one has to be concerned about potential impact of the JUMP plan on T-Mobile’s profitability.

Because the device can be traded-in for a device of the same price after six months without additional payments, one can only wonder who is paying for the value decline of the traded-in device. Similar to a new car, which loses most of its value the moment it drives off the lot, mobile phone see their value decline even faster because the replacement cycle is much more rapid. Someone has to pay for the decline in the device’s value and it’s not the consumer. It is almost inevitable that the JUMP program will need to get adjusted.

The other interesting result is that 4.6% of the respondents want to switch from their current carrier to T-Mobile for the JUMP service. Part of the 4.6% were Sprint customers who had no comparable choice until a few days ago. Sprint probably saw early indications of switchers to T-Mobile and scrambled to get their own program out the door.

AT&T’s and Verizon’s programs are different than T-Mobile’s. Most notably, neither AT&T’s and Verizon’s plan charge a program fee and neither include an insurance program for the fee or a discount to monthly charge. Regardless of which carrier they choose, consumers that frequently upgrade their devices will pay less in the long-term.

While the Un-Carrier campaign, JUMP, and LTE are driving growth in the customer acquisition, T-Mobile has also been able to reduce churn significantly. A little known fact is that roughly half of total gross adds in markets where T-Mobile and Metro PCS were competing against each went between those two carriers. The companies were competing against each other to a greater degree than any other carrier pair. When the two carriers merged, suddenly the external churn that was counted in both carrier’s metric was internalized. Logically, the churn dropped. As a result, net additions for T-Mobile increased substantially without increasing churn among the surviving carriers in the market place.

T-Mobile’s turnaround has been impressive, built by focusing on innovation, “investment” and a fortuitous choice in merger partners. The fundamentals of T-Mobile’s growth should stay intact for at least another two quarters if no competitor makes a significant change, but we are all waiting for Sprint to unveil their new plans under new ownership. One can only hope for Sprint that they will be unveiled this year because it now faces three formidable competitors.

A few days ago, a short report from the GSMA’s Wireless Intelligence (WI) group intimated that prices for LTE wireless data are lower in Europe than they are in the U.S. WI attributes the lower prices to more competition in Europe, pointing to the fact that multiple LTE networks are competing against each other. At face value, WI’s point on price appears valid; however, when observed a bit closer, the conclusion does not ring true.  The fatal flaw is that it does not take into account the basic tenant of economics that a “price” is established at the point where supply and demand are at equilibrium.  Higher demand for LTE in the US than in Europe, combined with a more limited spectrum inventory to support LTE in the US may well bedevil American consumer advocates until the FCC opens the spectrum spigot.

Consumers in the United States are the undisputed world leaders in their usage of smartphones and consumption of wireless data services. Consider the following.  In Sweden the market leader, TeliaSonera, has 170,000 customers on LTE, or 3% of TeliaSonera’s subscribers.  By comparison, more than 15 million customers, are on LTE networks with coverage that exceeds the entire territory of Sweden several times over. Verizon Wireless, one of the seven operators that are offering LTE in the US already, has more LTE customers than the rest of the world combined and more than 35% of its data traffic is on LTE. Whereas the operators in Europe and indeed the rest of the world are lowering their wireless data prices to attract more customers to their largely empty LTE networks, American consumer demand for LTE is extremely strong.

As a general economic matter, lower demand and lower usage leads to lower prices, while higher demand and higher usage leads to higher prices. Further, in the US where demand is very high and the spectrum resources to support the demand are constrained, prices will be impacted.

As one can see in the table above, United States mobile operators are facing a significantly more constrained supply of spectrum suitable to support wireless data as compared to their foreign counterparts. When we normalize the spectrum available per person, the United States consumer is by far in the worst position. It has per person, only 1/3 of the spectrum available than Italy where demand for wireless data is comparatively weak.  Other countries have assigned three to eight times as much spectrum per person to satisfy the demand for data.   Consider the impact on service prices if the FCC really opened up the spectrum spigot.  When spectrum was still plentiful in the United States, the wireless operators competed prices to the lowest in the industrialized world. The same competitive forces are at play with regard to wireless data pricing, but could take hold faster and more intensely if more spectrum were put into the marketplace and regulators allowed secondary markets to work more quickly and effectively.  Bravo to the FCC for making 30 MHz of WCS spectrum useable for supporting wireless broadband.  More and faster decisions like that will go a long way to accelerating the downward price trajectory for LTE based wireless services.