New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (7) The Pricing of 3G Value-added Services

Jul 27, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Post a comment

3G value-added services will be cheap, but not so cheap as you have expected.

[+] The pricing of video phone service

As a result of the fierce battle for subscribers between operators, 3G value-added services eventually become a secondary role. In the long-term, however, mobile subscribers will gradually accept the services and use them more than they did in the 2G time. In fact, subscribers first switch to 3G because of attractive voice fee rates. Then they begin to use more value-added services because of faster Internet access speed.

Generally speaking, the most talked-about 3G services include video phone and streaming media. With video phone, you will be able to see the one you are calling. Of course, you can also dial a number to watch a live broadcasting program. Streaming media, on the other hand, enables users to watch audio/video programs via the Internet, mostly by logging onto portals of operators with handsets.

Voice service, video phone and streaming media, how should the three services be appropriately priced? First, as video phone consumes 4 times of bandwidth than general voice calls do, should it be 4 times as expensive? The answer is no, because 4 times is pretty scaring. Most operators offer rates ranging between 1.2 to 1.5 times.

Due to privacy and courtesy concerns, video phone is rarely used. Some people argue that operators should offer lower rates to increase use of video phone services. The fact is, however, low price is probably not sufficient to eliminate the privacy concern. Operators even believe there are reasons you have to use video phone (e.g., your wife requires you to). Is there any other chance of earning such easy money?

[+] The pricing for streaming media

Streaming media service, which enables mobile TV and movies, has been in a dilemma of whether to charge by traffic volume (e.g., RMB X for watching Y mega bytes per month) or by service time (e.g., RMB X for Y hours per month). Eventually, all operators chose service time-based fee rate models.

As most users are still not accustomed to traffic based models, while charging by service time also seems weird (nobody pays TV bills by minutes), the best solution would be monthly packages without time or traffic volume limit. Fearing that users might turn on their handsets 24 hours a day, which would result in considerable waste of wireless network resources, most operators dare not choose the solution.

If they choose to charge by service time, how much per minute would be appropriate? Streaming media service usually consumes twice bandwidth as much as video call does. Nevertheless, I suggest its fee rate be set similar to, or even lower than that of general voice calls. As streaming media service is delivered through IP-based packet-switched network, it could use network resources more effectively than video phone, allowing larger bandwidth for users.

That billing model encourages the use of streaming media to improve the efficiency of the network resources of operators. A challenge for operators is that they have to collect payments for content providers, which would increase the total cost of users. However, that seems to be a problem without solution, because content providers need to be paid, too.

[+] WAP monthly package and the pricing for mobile Internet access

In my view, WAP, the service that has been available since the 2G time is more profitable than mobile TV, which is wildly betted on because of the Olympic Games. Some operators have already offered WAP monthly packages without traffic volume limit. With the advent of 3G, they now face a problem: whether to raise or lower the package rates?

As the costs of operators are based on traffic volumes and 3G, with higher speed, will generate far larger WAP volumes than 2G, maintaining the monthly packages does not seem to be a good deal. However, in order to encourage 3G subscribers to use WAP services, it makes no sense to raise the price. But operators do not want to cut price. Eventually, the fee rates are usually kept at the same level of the 2G services.

As to the monthly mobile Internet access packages (via computers) for current China Unicom's CDMA network, no substantial change is expected because the speed of 3G service remains low (384k for WCDMA). However, as 3G has just been launched in mainland China, it would be well equivalent to the level of 3.5G (HSDPA) right from the beginning. As a result, the fee charging model would change.

For example, there might be packages of RMB X/month for the speed of 128k and RMB Y/month for 256k. Such a pricing model is similar to that of ADSL. Theoretically, the peak rate of HSDPA could be up to 14.4M (it is reported that 3.6M Internet access services would be available soon in Taiwan). Therefore, it is possible to introduce different fee rates for different speed.

[+] The fee rate of value-added services is not the key to attract subscribers

Why operators are so reluctant to cut fee rates of 3G value-added services? Because in the fight for subscribers, they have already cut prices of general voice calls. How do they compensate the loss? Through the above value-added services, of course. Will the value-added service fee rate level affect their subscriber base? Basically not. Then why not setting the fee rates a little bit higher?

Many consumers would consider switching to operators who offer lower voice rates, not the one who offer lower value-added service fee rates. The pricing of value-added service is not the key for operators to attract subscribers. With this user experience and such a mindset of operators, 3G value-added services will be cheap, but not so cheap as you have expected. ( 2008/07/27 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )