"Number portability" is the only effective solution to China Unicom's development difficulties

The discussion on China Unicom's predicament has been a hot topic in the forum. Many people say that China Mobile has too big an advantage in low frequencies, and some even say that simply changing the distribution problem can change China Unicom's predicament. I plan to analyze this.

1. The number of users is determined by the low-frequency spectrum. The low-frequency spectrum is certainly a major indicator. However, there was a comparison of the number of users of China Unicom's G network and C network before 2008 (in 2002, C network had only 4 million users while G network had 100 million. In 2008, C network claimed to have 40 million users while G network had 140 million users, and China Telecom claimed to have only 20 million users when it was desperately draining the blood of G network). Later, the American company V sold the low-frequency spectrum to company A. All of these proved that when a certain number is reached, this is no longer a decisive factor.

[[223103]]

2. Can 6m meet the demand? The answer is of course it cannot fully meet the demand, but is it acceptable? According to the experience of China Telecom, in the two years after 2008, it worked hard to develop users and network congestion did occur. But after analyzing, where did they occur? They occurred in the hot spots of the city. Compared with China Mobile and China Unicom, China Telecom has a higher value in per capita low-spectrum, but China Mobile and China Unicom are both normal in the hot spots of the city. This also proves that in that service background, China Unicom has a smoother low-spectrum network than China Telecom. In other words, based on the performance at that time, China Telecom should have allocated more spectrum.

3. The rules of the market, taking CPU as an example, whenever AMD uses a low-price strategy, its market share is basically the largest, and when AMD is selling technology, their profits and market share must be high. When China Unicom regarded W network as a treasure 12 years ago, it missed the opportunity, and often failed after MediaTek launched T network chips. However, when China Unicom did not claim to engage in a price war, they were their most glorious days.

4. The side effects of price wars. Previously, virtual operators mainly engaged in price wars, so the 170 number segment has become bad, and no one is likely to object. Now there is a data traffic price war, and no one has become bad, because the data traffic does not affect or reflect what number the phone owner is using. Therefore, other people have no way to specifically mark what you are using.

5. The stability of the number. If the emphasis is on price, people often choose to use it temporarily. Although it is only a difference of ten yuan a month, generally no one cares (the question is, if you don’t care about this, why would you choose a ten-yuan cheaper one?). However, just like cars, the owner of an imported brand worth 170,000 or 80,000 yuan has a slightly higher psychological sense of superiority than the owner of a domestic car worth 140,000 or 150,000 yuan. That sense of superiority is very empty, but this is how society is. People live to show off to others.

In summary, under the current conditions, China Unicom cannot achieve the reputation of China Mobile and China Telecom. Only by white-labeling the numbers can the brand reputation be eliminated and people will no longer distinguish others by numbers.

Of course, group network and short numbers are also a big problem, but they are far less decisive than number portability (the solution is to force the opening of different networks with the same conditions to break the deadlock).