Third pipe's a charm... if it's smart

ATLANTA--

If you attended this morning's opening session of the CTIA's Wireless 2004 show this week, you likely heard FCC Chairman Michael Powell refer to the potential of wireless service to be the "third pipe" into consumers' homes, after DSL and cable modems. That's not to be confused with CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent's reference to wireless as the "third screen" of consumers' lives, after the TV and the computer. Actually, I think Powell and Largent meant essentially the same thing, since the computer is both one of Powell's pipes and one of Largent's screens--and even though the TV isn't really a pipe, the cable modem is, and a lot of TVs have cable, so...

Actually, Powell corrected himself (or maybe he was correcting Largent, who asked the question in the first place) and said he sees wireless as more of a "third way" than a third pipe. That brings me (finally) to my point--which echoes Powell's, as far as I can tell: It's imperative that the third screen/pipe/way be a smart one, and that means the imperative for wireless service providers is to keep those pipes from becoming dumb ones. (I'm sticking with pipe here because "dumb way" and "dumb screen" just don't have the same ring to them.)

This year's CTIA show appears--so far, at least--to be largely about mobile content and how to create it more effectively, provision it more intelligently, transport it more efficiently, deliver it more quickly, bill for it more accurately and collect revenue for it more fully. Success in wireless isn't just about the pipe, it's about enhancing it. As Powell put it this morning, "Consumers don't buy just the pipe--they buy what you can do with it."

The most important aspect of that truth for wireless service providers is that they aren't the only entities with the scale, innovative capabilities and reach to play in the mobile content space. There are plenty of large producers of multiple kinds of content (media companies, entertainment companies, music companies, etc.) that share those characteristics and are very interested in making their content mobile. Some of them are already starting to do it, threatening to make liars of everyone who said the mobile virtual network operator model would never work.

It could be argued that those content providers--even the biggest of the big--will always go after consumer niches that align nicely with their content and never offer the kind of service scope that a nationwide carrier can. On the other hand, it could also be argued that a nationwide carrier is in danger of becoming a nationwide operator of dumb pipes that are used in large part to carry content that's labeled with a brand that's not their own.

So the question is, is it easier for a content provider to become a wireless service provider or for a wireless network operator to become a content provider. Or, are we moving toward a future characterized by very different, very interesting relationships and partnerships between the two types of entities?

We'll let you know if this week's CTIA show yields any answers.

E-mail me at jmeyers@primediabusiness.com.