
Of course it's all nonsense. Are we seeing regular radical overhauls of networks that would mean that network providers are overtaking each other in terms of network capacity? Of course not. So why the disparity? It's because there are so many variables associated with the user experience (distance from the base-station, contention ratio, height of the antenna, thickness of walls) of mobile broadband that generalisations about "the best network" are meaningless.
This won't stop MNOs from trumpeting their success in these polls of course, but in reality, user experience will bear little resemblance to the results of all these surveys. MNOs need to do two things.
Firstly they need to ensure that these polls continue to give out - at least - mixed messages. Ideally, of course, an MNO would want to be #1 in every poll. The bare minimum required is that they do not allow themselves to drop too far behind their competitors. Once there is consensus on 'the best' or 'the worst' network it will be a difficult barrier to overcome, even if there is no grounding in reality. A good reputation will allow MNOs to charge more, while those with a bad reputation will be forced to compete more aggressively on price. This requires that MNOs continue to invest in network upgrades.
Secondly they need to allow users to try before they buy. That way they can do the comparison that matters, i.e. how do the various offers match up in my front room, office, local pub etc. rather than depend on YouGov, Which? or whoever doing that research in a small random selection of locations.
No comments:
Post a Comment