I’m just back from a conference in Perth Australia
where a major economics professor from a northeastern university
headlined. After his presentation he
stuck around perhaps allocating a small portion of his considerable
intelligence to following a later discussion.
A colleague of mine presented a paper comparing wireless policies and
market performance of carriers in the U.S. and E.U. He noted that U.S. carriers have some of the
highest average return per user, but also some of the lowest rates on a per
unit basis. He also noted that the U.S.
market has less concentration than many other E.U. markets using the Herfindahl
Hirschman Index (“HHI”).
Using
the traditional peer review process I mentioned that the HHI score used in the
paper was low compared to more recent measures that include additional
acquisitions by Verizon and AT&T. I
also noted that high volume, plan-based consumers can benefit from world class
low rates, but low volume users do not.
I made an analogy to the pricy breakfast buffet at my hotel. People like me with a healthy appetite enjoy
low cost per gram, but my wife incurs a high unit cost as she consumes less.
Professor
x chimed in with the stupid criticism based on his view that the HHI is not
worthy of use and the availability of prepaid plans that do not lock in
subscribers. I didn’t know what a
touchy, third rail topic the HHI is, particularly to researchers sponsored by incumbents
keen of making acquisitions while also insisting on how competitive the wireless
marketplace is. The Professor noted that
17% of wireless consumers in the U.S. don’t have a plan, but he never got
around to acknowledging that these per call and per text users pay far higher
rates than the world class levels incurred by consumers who make thousands of
text messages monthly.
So
the smartest guy in the room offers a clear snapshot of how to act like an ugly
American bully in nation adverse to tall poppies. 30+ years as a scholar in both academic and
applied telecommunications issues and Dr. Big Shot dismisses my contrary
evidence as stupidity. Not smart.