A cellphone by any other name smells like broadband
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 | 04:55 PM ET
CBCNews.ca Staff
While cleaning out my inbox today, I came across Merrill Lynch's annual wireless matrix, a measure of cellphone revenues, prices and other statistics from around the world. Although the survey, which has near-Bible status in the wireless industry, was released in June, it's particularly pertinent given the report released today by Canada's biggest ISPs about how the country's broadband service is world-class by every measure. [UPDATE, Nov. 5: To clarify, the word "every" was used to sum up the fact that the report says Canada is a leader in all the major measures commonly used in international studies to compare broadband services among different countries - availability, user adoption, speed and price. It wasn't intended to be taken to mean literally every comparison that could possibly be made. You can read the full report, and its evaluation of a number of aspects of Canadian broadband as they compare to other services around the world, here.]
A few months ago, many of those same companies - Bell, Rogers, Telus - took umbrage with an OECD study that found Canadians pay some of the highest cellphone rates in the world. The OECD study found that medium users in Canada paid the third-highest rates, next to customers in the United States and Spain. Canadian carriers said the study used flawed methodology, which was based on European calling patterns. They cited Merrill Lynch's matrix as proof that prices were low - indeed, among the 22 developed countries rated by the bank, Canada had the fourth-lowest per-minute rate (about eight cents US). Canadians also have some of the highest monthly minutes of use in the study, with an average of 420 - third in the developed world, next to the United States and Hong Kong.
One thing the carriers didn't mention, though, is that Canada also scored third-highest in something called ARPU - or average revenue per user. ARPU is essentially how much monthly income a carrier earns per customer. Canada's $45.85 US rates third, next to the United States and Japan, according to Merrill Lynch. That third-highest ARPU certainly looks like the third-highest prices the OECD talked about (carriers in Germany, by comparison, earn an average of $19.81 from each customer, the lowest in Merrill Lynch's report).
Cellphone carriers have argued that high ARPU does not necessarily equal high prices - Canadians simply like to talk a lot, despite all the free calls they get on their landlines, so therefore they end up paying more for volume.
It's an argument that doesn't fly, though, when Canada is compared to countries with similarly low per-minute rates and high monthly usage, such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Both countries have comparatively low ARPU ($20.38 and $30.29, respectively). New Zealand is perhaps the best comparison to Canada. Customers there have free local calls on landlines and pay the exact same wireless rate per minute as we do - eight cents - yet only use 186 cellphone minutes per month. Monthly cellphone ARPU in New Zealand, however, is only $20.77 U.S., less than half Canada's.
What really makes the argument that high ARPU equals high prices in Canada is when gross domestic product per capita is figured in. Canada's GDP per capita, which is a general measure of a country's wealth per citizen, is $38,093 US, or nearly $10,000 lower than the U.S. or Japan, according to Merrill Lynch. In other words, while ARPU/prices in those two countries are higher than in Canada, so is the standard of living and, thereby, the disposable income.
None of this is even up for debate anymore, as the Canadian government decided our prices were indeed high nearly two years ago and moved to get new carriers to start up.
Merrill Lynch's wireless numbers are accepted by carriers while the OECD statistics are not, but ultimately they say the same thing. The ISPs are now similarly criticizing the OECD's findings on broadband. It's too bad Merrill Lynch doesn't have a broadband matrix because it'd be interesting to see if the same conclusions were reached there.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Tech Bytes »
Recent Posts
- Universe hates Higgs boson, Chicago Cubs
- Friday, October 23, 2009
- Large Hadron Collider goes Back to the Future
- Monday, October 19, 2009
- Multi-touch concept for desktops: 10/GUI
- Thursday, October 15, 2009
- Finland makes broadband a legal right
- Wednesday, October 14, 2009
- Google Maps goes it alone
- Tuesday, October 13, 2009
- Subscribe to Tech Bytes
Archives
- October 2009 (10)
- September 2009 (13)
- August 2009 (12)
- July 2009 (15)
- June 2009 (10)
- May 2009 (18)
- April 2009 (17)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (11)
- January 2009 (12)
- December 2008 (10)
- November 2008 (10)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (4)
- August 2008 (4)
- July 2008 (16)
- June 2008 (9)
- May 2008 (12)
- April 2008 (15)
- March 2008 (13)
- February 2008 (13)
- January 2008 (47)
- December 2007 (12)
- November 2007 (12)
- October 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (17)
- July 2007 (27)
- June 2007 (18)
- May 2007 (28)
- April 2007 (25)
- March 2007 (28)
- February 2007 (25)
- January 2007 (35)
- December 2006 (25)
Comments
Mark Goldberg
Thornhill
In the ARPU analysis, you need to account for the extraordinary penetration rates in HK and Singapore. HK is around 163%, Singapore around 130% or more. So, the average user is actually paying for almost 2 ARPUs in HK and about 1.5 ARPUs in Singapore. This brings their cost per bill payer to about the same as in Canada.
International comparisons aren't easy. Read the report we issued today and you will see why we believe the OECD report is flawed.
Posted October 7, 2009 08:17 PM
Peter Nowak
Toronto
Actually, that's not true. If you account for multiple cellphone subscriptions per person in Hong Kong and Singapore, and you multiply the penetration rate by ARPU, you still come to $28.53 and $39.37 respectively, still considerably lower than Canada's $45.85. And both countries have GDP per capita similar to Canada's ($32K and $36K respectively, compared to our $38K).
In fact, if you factor penetration rates into ARPU among all 22 nations in the Merrill Lynch study, only two - Norway and Switzerland - come out a bit higher than Canada: $49.22 and $48.10, respectively. GDP per capita in both those countries, however, is considerably higher than Canada's at $77K and $61K. All four countries that have higher total ARPU than Canada also have significantly higher standards of living, as in an average of $10K+.
To go one step further - it's actually cheaper to own more than two cellphones in Greece (GDP per cap of $34K) than it is to have one in Canada. Greek ARPU for its whopping 214% penetration is $45.54, still lower than Canada's.
Posted October 8, 2009 11:05 AM
Mark Goldberg
Thornhill
Exactly how is it a good thing for Greece to have 214% mobile penetration? Doesn't that smell strange to you?
Besides, that means that the average Greek has more than 2 cell phones, pays for more than 2 phones per month and still uses their phone less (155 minutes average per phone per month) than the one phone carried in Canada (each has an average of 420 minutes).
Posted October 8, 2009 03:24 PM
Peter Nowak
Toronto
There is nothing strange or bad about Greece having a mobile penetration of 214%. It could mean many things - that Greeks carry one personal cellphone and one BlackBerry for work, or it could mean they have a cellphone and an internet stick/3G-enabled laptop. The country's poor broadband penetration (according to the OECD) is also likely a factor.
In a few years time, it won't be uncommon to see many countries with 200% or 300% penetration.
Posted October 8, 2009 03:52 PM
Ali
Toronto
Thanks for coming out, Mr. Goldberg. Even with the facts in front of you, you still can't help but spin it. It's slightly amusing.
Posted October 15, 2009 08:29 AM
Greek Geek
Most mobile users in Greece carry two cellphones, on for day-to-day bidness and one for exclusive use with boyfriend/girldfriend. Also in Greece, only caller pays for the call, not both parties like Canada. On landlines, both parties pay for calls. So 214% penetration for mobiles not so surprising.
Posted November 11, 2009 09:29 PM