Skip to main content

IPTV is Not a Silver Bullet

According to Pyramid Research, IPTV is more about broadband, not TV. Successful IPTV deployments are more about selling broadband than about selling television. While telcos are leaders in the broadband space, they remain novices in the pay-TV market.

Therefore, it is arguably more profitable for telcos to maintain their position in the broadband segment than to become a leader in the pay-TV space, as TV is only one of the many revenue-generating applications that can be carried over broadband.

For decades, voice services have been the bread and butter business for wireline operators. However, over the past decade, telcos have seen their voice revenues decline significantly, primarily, due to fixed-to-mobile substitution.

For example, Verizon reports a 4 percent per-year loss of traditional phone lines to wireless and broadband. Similarly, Telef�nica�s estimates for wireline revenues in Spain show voice declining from 49 percent of overall revenues in 2004 to 35 percent by 2008. With declining voice revenues, broadband has become a key source of revenue for telcos.

However, to sustain revenue growth and to differentiate their offerings, telcos must move beyond being just a provider of Internet access. They need to leverage their network capabilities and provide enhanced services � essentially monetizing the broadband network further.

IPTV is not a silver bullet for telcos, but it is the first significant broadband service to emerge from the telco broadband network. It is the missing piece in the telco triple play bundle, necessary in today�s competitive markets, and it could be a powerful revenue preservation tool by enabling operators to replace their fading voice business with a growth business. Moreover, the IPTV set-top box extends beyond just TV and creates a platform for telcos to penetrate the home and offer a wide array of broadband services.

Popular posts from this blog

Bold Broadband Policy: Yes We Can, America

Try to imagine this scenario, that General Motors and Ford were given exclusive franchises to build America's interstate highway system, and also all the highways that connect local communities. Now imagine that, based upon a financial crisis, these troubled companies decided to convert all "their" local arteries into toll-roads -- they then use incremental toll fees to severely limit all travel to and from small businesses. Why? This handicapping process reduced the need to invest in building better new roads, or repairing the dilapidated ones. But, wouldn't that short-sighted decision have a detrimental impact on the overall national economy? It's a moot point -- pure fantasy -- you say. The U.S. political leadership would never knowingly risk the nation's social and economic future on the financial viability of a restrictive duopoly. Or, would they? The 21st century Global Networked Economy travels across essential broadband infrastructure. The forced intro...