12 ms·

I once switched to T-Mobile from the plan Sprint offered to families of employees. At one point T-Mobile had better plans for the public than Sprint had as a p

I once switched to T-Mobile from the plan Sprint offered to families of employees. At one point T-Mobile had better plans for the public than Sprint had as a private perk. I sometimes wonder what would happen if a Bezos or Walton wandered into telecommunications, seeking the lowest possible margins, what mad havoc it would wreak.

rayiner 8y ago
Ultra low margins works in retail because it’s less capital intensive and risk is low. If Wal-Mart stopped innovating they’d still dominate for what, a decade or two? If a carrier decided to sit out a round of cellular evolution (let’s save $20 billion and skip 5G)? Even Verizon couldn’t do that. Or, if they bet on the wrong technology, like Sprint. In the 3G era they had about equal market share to Verizon and Cingular (which became AT&T), but bet on WiMAX for 4G and never recovered from that.
- brownbat 8y ago
  I find that theory really compelling... but if I look around for businesses sorted by margins, I find several counterexamples. Oil and gas as a sector has pretty mediocre margins. Energy generally, even when it's not a utility with government stipulated rates. https://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish https://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-... It's possible that the counterexamples are just outliers and you're still right. Or maybe there's another factor, like you mention, how static is the industry and how much continual innovation or development is required. Regardless, padded margins isn't necessarily an indicator of long term health. If you can safely charge your customers a significant premium, to pay for research or expansion for the health of the business in 10 years, there will be pressure from some shareholders and short term execs to raid the piggy bank. Keep prices high while lowering future investment. The other odd thing about this as a hard law is MVNOs. Low cost competitors are renting space on existing networks. They're probably not paying lower than cost? I suppose they could be, but subsidized by the high paying customers of that network... Hmm. I generally have a visceral feeling of being gouged any time I've paid any telecom provider, but maybe you're right and that's not entirely fair. I'll definitely have to give it some more thought.

rayiner 8y ago

Ultra low margins works in retail because it’s less capital intensive and risk is low. If Wal-Mart stopped innovating they’d still dominate for what, a decade or two? If a carrier decided to sit out a round of cellular evolution (let’s save $20 billion and skip 5G)? Even Verizon couldn’t do that. Or, if they bet on the wrong technology, like Sprint. In the 3G era they had about equal market share to Verizon and Cingular (which became AT&T), but bet on WiMAX for 4G and never recovered from that.

brownbat 8y ago
I find that theory really compelling... but if I look around for businesses sorted by margins, I find several counterexamples. Oil and gas as a sector has pretty mediocre margins. Energy generally, even when it's not a utility with government stipulated rates. https://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish https://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-... It's possible that the counterexamples are just outliers and you're still right. Or maybe there's another factor, like you mention, how static is the industry and how much continual innovation or development is required. Regardless, padded margins isn't necessarily an indicator of long term health. If you can safely charge your customers a significant premium, to pay for research or expansion for the health of the business in 10 years, there will be pressure from some shareholders and short term execs to raid the piggy bank. Keep prices high while lowering future investment. The other odd thing about this as a hard law is MVNOs. Low cost competitors are renting space on existing networks. They're probably not paying lower than cost? I suppose they could be, but subsidized by the high paying customers of that network... Hmm. I generally have a visceral feeling of being gouged any time I've paid any telecom provider, but maybe you're right and that's not entirely fair. I'll definitely have to give it some more thought.