{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.videoDuration}}
-
34%
of countries where fixed service has become commoditized or is ‘on the edge’ of commoditization
-
-21%
total change in the global population-weighted ARPA in the past 7 years
-
60%
of countries have seen increased competition since 2014
Declining ARPAs position industry on the edge of commoditization
Competitive pressure in the global fixed telephone industry has been rather constant, with no significant changes in the market share spread since 2012. However, telecommunication providers across the globe have seen a continuous trend towards “on the edge” commoditization as ARPA spread globally decreased. A vast majority of countries remain differentiated for now. However, ARPA pressures have driven the competitive intensity higher and a continued trend towards commoditization.
Strategy&’s annual commoditization tracker analyzes the state of play in markets across the globe by looking at two key metrics: changes in the spread between fixed operators with the largest and smallest share of each market’s subscribers, and in the spread between those with the highest and lowest average revenue per account.
Fixed commoditization trends by market
Market:
Region:
Please note: 2021 is based on Q1 and Q2 data. ARPA: Average Revenue Per Account Source: Analysys Mason; Strategy& research and analysis.
Help
To measure and better understand the scope of commoditization within the mobile industry, we developed a commoditization score based on a combination of two independent variables at both the national and regional levels:
- Average revenue per user (ARPA) spread: The difference between the ARPUs of the market’s major players. A declining difference between the highest and lowest ARPA indicates that operators are losing the ability to differentiate among their products and services, and are thus engaging in a pricing “race to the bottom.”
- Market-share spread: The difference between the market shares of the largest and smallest players in the market. The smaller the spread, the more commoditized the market, as the pricing war leads to even greater interchangeability among providers, and thus less inclination on the part of consumers to change providers.
Depending on their score on these two measures, we have placed each market and region we studied into one of four commoditization zones.
- Zone 1: Comfortable. In this zone, there is a greater than 50 percent spread in market share and ARPA between highest and lowest market players indicating that commoditization is far off. However, this can change quickly if new competitors enter the picture or a competitor launches a particularly aggressive pricing strategy.
- Zone 2: Differentiated. There is a large spread in the ARPA between operators in this zone and no more than a 25 percent spread in market share. Several players in such markets have managed to maintain a range of pricing options, which they can maintain only because there is no dominant player in the market—and thus a wide market share spread.
- Zone 3: On the edge. Markets in this zone have no more than a 50 percent difference in market share and ARPA between highest and lowest. Operators in these markets have managed to maintain some differentiation in pricing, but decreasing differences in market share are pulling the market toward commoditization.
- Zone 4: Commoditized. Markets within this zone have less than 25 percent difference in market share between the highest and lowest players in the market and less than 25 percent difference in ARPA. Operators in these markets are fully in the grip of commoditization.
We have also assigned each market a Commoditization Index (CI) score—a single figure that provides an “at-a-glance” summary of where a market or region lies on the path from comfortable to commoditization. The CI score is an average of market share spread and ARPA spread, weighting both spread scores equally.
Although the CI score for a market or region is derived from the market-share spread and ARPA spread, the score provides a complementary perspective to a market’s commoditization zone—and can drive insights obscured by a market’s zone position. For example, a market that is in Zone 4 (‘Comfortable’) may be identified as more competitive overall or ‘On the edge’ by the CI score metric.
The following markets and the regions they belong to were included in the analysis.
| Market | Region |
| Algeria | Africa |
| Congo, Dem. Rep. | Africa |
| South Africa | Africa |
| Sudan | Africa |
| Australia | Asia Pacific |
| Bangladesh | Asia Pacific |
| China | Asia Pacific |
| Hong Kong SAR, China | Asia Pacific |
| India | Asia Pacific |
| Indonesia | Asia Pacific |
| Japan | Asia Pacific |
| Malaysia | Asia Pacific |
| Pakistan | Asia Pacific |
| Philippines | Asia Pacific |
| Singapore | Asia Pacific |
| South Korea | Asia Pacific |
| Taiwan | Asia Pacific |
| Thailand | Asia Pacific |
| Austria | Europe |
| Belgium | Europe |
| Bulgaria | Europe |
| Croatia | Europe |
| Czech Republic | Europe |
| Denmark | Europe |
| France | Europe |
| Germany | Europe |
| Greece | Europe |
| Hungary | Europe |
| Ireland | Europe |
| Italy | Europe |
| Macedonia | Europe |
| Netherlands | Europe |
| Norway | Europe |
| Poland | Europe |
| Portugal | Europe |
| Romania | Europe |
| Slovakia | Europe |
| Spain | Europe |
| Sweden | Europe |
| Switzerland | Europe |
| United Kingdom | Europe |
| Russia | Independent States |
| Ukraine | Independent States |
| Uzbekistan | Independent States |
| Argentina | Latin America |
| Brazil | Latin America |
| Chile | Latin America |
| Colombia | Latin America |
| Peru | Latin America |
| Afghanistan | MENA |
| Egypt | MENA |
| Iraq | MENA |
| Israel | MENA |
| Kuwait | MENA |
| Saudi Arabia | MENA |
| Turkey | MENA |
| Canada | North America |
| Mexico | North America |
| United States | North America |
Detailed information not available for this country / region.
Brazil
Though ARPUs have declined substantially overall in recent years, differentiated mobile operators continue to command a premium.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015): | R$78.5 billion (US$23.5 billion) |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15, R$): | 5.9% |
| Number of subscriptions (2015): | 259 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015): | 119% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$): | $5.85 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$): | –6.3% |
Major players: Claro, Nextel Brasil, Oi, TIM Brasil (TIM Participac?o?es), Vivo (Telefo?nica)
Market Overview
With a highly saturated wireless market (119 percent penetration as measured by total connections), and a shrinking ARPA (6 percent annual average decline over the past four years, though pricing has rebounded slightly in recent quarters), Brazil’s carriers are extracting less and less value from mobile subscribers.
Although Brazil’s wireless market has grown steadily in local currency terms over the past few years, high inflation and a strengthening U.S. dollar globally has led to a decline in the Brazilian market in U.S. dollar terms.
The nation’s recession has contributed to operators’ declining overall revenue, as carriers are experiencing greater levels of delinquency on payments, likely a result of rising unemployment, increasing personal debt, and higher interest rates.
Market Share
In June 2016, Brazil’s top four wireless players provided service to 98 percent of mobile subscribers, with Telefo?nica’s Vivo at roughly 29 percent, TIM Brasil at 26 percent, Claro at 25 percent, and Oi at 17 percent. Nextel Brasil, the number five player by market share, serves less than 2 percent of subscribers, and does not participate in the prepaid market, which continues to represent the majority of net additions and subscribers (74 percent of the total in June 2016).
Over the past 10 years, Oi has significantly driven net subscriber additions — thus narrowing overall market share spread. Oi’s recent bankruptcy filing after a failed merger attempt with TIM Brasil, however, has the potential to change these share dynamics substantially. Though still representing a minority of subscriptions, post-paid subscribers have fueled revenue growth at Vivo, as it has grown its share of these subscribers from 26 percent in 2006 to more than 40 percent today.
ARPA Spread
Despite overall declining market value and ARPUs, some mobile operators have succeeded in generating premium pricing. Vivo boasts a monthly ARPA 50 percent greater than those of its closest competitors, TIM and Claro, driven primarily by significant gains in the postpaid market, where Vivo has increased share.
Vivo’s price premium and postpaid share gains are, in part, a function of its investments in mobile broadband, a portfolio of convergent and integrated offerings, and a focus on innovation, which has generated investments and service offerings in new sectors, including m-books, machine-to-machine technology, and m-learning
This country profile was prepared by Paolo Pigorini (paolo.pigorini@pwc.com) and Alberto Silva
Source: Strategy& research and analysis
Canada
As competitors focus on growth in an increasingly competitive market, the country is trending toward commoditization, despite its high ARPA.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015): | CAD$22.51 billion (US$17.6 billion) |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15, CAD$): | 5.2% |
| Number of subscriptions (2015): | 35 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015): | 95% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$): | $46.71 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$): | 1.5% |
Major players: Bell (Bell Canada Enterprises or BCE), Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers Communications, SaskTel, Shaw Communications, Telus Communications, Videotron
Market Overview
Although Canada’s wireless market has grown strongly in local currency over the past few years, a strengthening U.S. dollar has challenged local wireless service providers. In 2016, several Canadian operators announced billing surcharges intended to help maintain ARPA and overall real revenue.
Canada’s top three wireless players by market share (Rogers, Telus, and BCE) collectively serve 90 percent of market subscribers, with a spread of just 5 percentage points between them. This intense competition contributed to Canada’s rating as on the edge from 2006 to 2010.
The 2009 entrance of low-cost provider Wind Mobile caused the market’s ARPA spread to triple when the company began reporting ARPA in 2011. Since then, it has created more options for consumers, slowly gaining market share — to more than 3 percent of subscribers in 2016, when it was acquired by Shaw Communications and rebranded as Freedom Mobile.
Despite Wind’s launch, and the introduction of several new brands, Canada’s major players were able to increase ARPA overall from 2011 to 2015, and the market maintains one of the highest ARPUs globally.
Market Share
Canada’s three largest wireless providers each have a market share of around 30 percent, though their collective share has decreased from nearly 96 percent of the market in 2006 to less than 90 percent in 2016, as new entrants and regional players have grabbed share.
Recent M&A activity (including cable operator Shaw Communications’ acquisition of Wind Mobile in 2016, and Bell Canada’s announced intent to acquire Manitoba Telecom Services) may impact share dynamics by accelerating the growth of lower- price options like Freedom Mobile.
ARPA Spread
Though market ARPA spread widened dramatically following the launch of Wind’s lower-price offers, the spread has since been narrowing again. Wind’s ARPA has climbed since its 2009 launch, while operators at the higher end of the market have not seen ARPUs increase to the same degree over the same period.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s wireless code, which took effect in December 2013, introduced several consumer protections and reduced restrictions on consumers switching carriers. The resulting increased churn has intensified market competition and created greater pressure on carrier ARPUs.
As consumers continue to take advantage of the protections enabled by the CRTC wireless code, and as Shaw continues to invest in network upgrades to move its rebranded Wind offering to LTE, ARPA spreads are likely to narrow further.
This country profile was prepared by Oliver Koderman (oliver.koderman@pwc.com), Daniel Rydeen (daniel.rydeen@pwc.com), and Bali Minhas (bali.minhas@pwc.com).
Source: Strategy& research and analysis
France
An aggressive new entrant has taken share from incumbents, and the ensuing price war has commoditized the market.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015): | US$21.8 billion |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15, US$): | –9.9% |
| Number of subscriptions (2015): | 75 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015): | 116% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$): | $22.63 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$): | –11.2% |
Major players: Bouygues Group, Free Mobile (Iliad), Orange, SFR
Market Overview
The market was long characterized by three primary mobile operators prior to the launch of Iliad subsidiary Free Mobile in 2011.
Since the disruption caused by Free’s low-cost, no-contract, unlimited voice and text offers, the major carriers have experienced higher churn and lower ARPA, and responded with their own offers targeted at the customer segments most responsive to Free. As more carriers have launched low-price offerings, Iliad has invested significantly in network quality.
The combination of these factors has pushed a market that was "on the edge" a decade ago toward commoditization, at lower price points.
Market Share
In 2010, before the launch of Free, there was a significant spread in market share among the primary network operators, with Orange claiming more than 45 percent of subscribers. By 2016, Free had increased its share of subscribers to nearly 18 percent, while Orange and SFR had seen their own market shares decline. Free is now challenging Bouygues, whose share has remained relative constant, for the number three position.
ARPA Spread
Between 2012 and 2014, the incumbents’ combined ARPA dropped by more than 22 percent, thanks largely to the influence of Free. The market’s ARPA spread has not narrowed significantly, however, as operators have quickly kept pace with competing promotional activity.
In the wake of the launch of Free Mobile, Orange introduced its low-cost Sosh offering to stay competitive. Orange positioned Sosh as a low-price offering similar to Free, and structured operations to match, with digital-first distribution.
Although overall market prices have declined during the past few years, with more and more parity among offerings from the major carriers, ARPA declines may be abating. In the first quarter of 2016, Orange’s ARPA, for example, fell less than 1 percent year-over-year, after several years of much sharper declines.
This country profile was prepared by Pierre Pe?ladeau (pierre.peladeau@strategyand.fr.pwc.com) and Achraf Madani
Source: Strategy& research and analysis
Germany
Consolidation among operators has increased ARPA spread but reduced market share spread to just 11 percent.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015): | €26.5 billion (US$29.4 billion) |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15, €): | 1.8% |
| Number of subscriptions (2015): | 117 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015): | 145% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$): | $14.58 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$): | –2.7% |
Major players: Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica Deutschland, Vodafone
Market Overview
The German wireless market’s value is the largest in Europe but has declined due to stiff competition and price wars. The market has seen considerable consolidation in recent years.
Telefo?nica Deutschland’s 2014 acquisition of E-Plus Group, KPN’s German operation, reduced the number of major players from four to three, with relative parity in market share among them. This reduction in competition is expected to stabilize the market’s ARPA and put the sector in a better position for revenue growth.
It remains to be seen if fixed–mobile convergence will provide a spark for the next round of consolidation. Recent deal activity includes Vodafone’s acquisition of Kabel Deutschland, one of two major cable operators, while merger rumors continue to swirl around Liberty Global’s Unitymedia, the other large cable operator.
Market Share
Prior to Telefo?nica’s acquisition of E-Plus, T-Mobile and Vodafone were the largest players, controlling 37 and 27 percent of the market, respectively.
The takeover of E-Plus secures Telefo?nica’s place as Germany’s largest operator with a 39 percent share in 2016, while T-Mobile’s and Vodafone’s market shares have remained steady at pre-acquisition levels.
The E-Plus deal has narrowed Germany’s market share spread to just 11 percent.
ARPA Spread
Although the ARPA of the three largest operators has decreased by nearly 40 percent overall since 2006, the ARPA spread has increased since 2008.
The ARPA of low-cost operator E-Plus fell steadily from 2008 to 2014 as its portfolio of mobile virtual network operators focused on growing its value-conscious customer base.
Because Telefo?nica has maintained E-Plus’s low-cost play, its ARPA has continued to decline steadily, while T-Mobile’s and Vodafone’s have remained relatively constant.
With fewer large competitors in the market, the overall decline in ARPA has halted since the fourth quarter of 2014.
This country profile was prepared by Florian Groene (florian.groene@pwc.com) and Patrick Moynihan.
Source: Strategy& research and analysis, strategyand.pwc.com/wirelesscommoditization
Indonesia
Although Indonesia is primarily a prepaid market, its burgeoning demand for data and a transition to 4G are likely to increase ARPA over the next few years.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015): | US$11 billion |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15): | N/A |
| Number of subscriptions (2015): | 325 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015): | 131% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$): | $2.60 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$): | 4.6% |
Major players: Indosat Ooredoo, Smartfren, Telkomsel (PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia), Tri (Hutchinson), XL Axiata
Market Overview
Indonesia’s mobile market is highly saturated in terms of subscriptions, with 131 percent penetration at the end of 2015. It is also predominantly a prepaid market, with more than 98 percent of customers purchasing SIM cards and prepaying for mobile service. Long-term contracts are rare, and switching costs are very low. Consumers have an average of 1.6 active SIM cards and often two or three phones as they look for the best signal or cheapest price. This contributes to the market’s relatively high comfort level.
Indonesia has five mobile operators with a market share of 3 percent or more, making the market quite competitive. The “Big Three” (Telekomunikasi Indonesia’s Telkomsel, Indosat, and XL Axiata) will soon become the “Big Four,” as Hutchinson’s Tri continues to gain market share.
Market Share
Indonesia’s largest operator — the state-owned Telkomsel and its prepaid brands Kartu As, Loop, and SimPati — leads the market with a 44 percent share of subscriptions. Indosat, the second-largest operator, serves 22 percent of the market.
Offering more limited 3G and 4G coverage than the larger players and with service targeted at large city centers, Tri has used a low-price position (25 percent of market average ARPA in 2016) to drive share gains over the past decade.
ARPA Spread
Although average ARPUs in Indonesia have declined at an average rate of 8 percent a year since 2006, the ARPA spread has remained steady over the past decade, ranging from 78 percent to 82 percent.
Despite the availability of multiple branded prepaid options from various competitors, Telkomsel continues to earn an ARPA premium to the market average of 138 percent, which has steadily increased since 2010, based on its broad network coverage, service quality, and brand equity.
Growth in data consumption will continue to increase customers’ willingness to pay for a faster 3G network and greater coverage for 4G network service, while voice-only customers pay rock-bottom prices for 2G or 2.5G networks. Looking ahead, this may drive an increase in market share spread in the short term, as carriers that are able to deliver higher-quality service to consumers using data-intensive applications can capture higher ARPUs.
This country profile was prepared by Abhijit Navalekar (abhijit.navalekar@strategyand.ae.pwc.com) and Aditya Rahalkar.
Source: Strategy& research and analysis, strategyand.pwc.com/wirelesscommoditization
Mexico
The country’s Telcel serves nearly 70 percent of the market, but regulatory initiatives are creating an opportunity for competitors.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015): | US$15.5 billion |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15, US$): | 0.5% |
| Number of subscriptions (2015): | 107 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015): | 84% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$): | $14.63 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$): | –6.9% |
Major players: AT&T Mexico (combination of Iusacell and Nextel Mexico), Movistar (Telefo?nica), Telcel (Ame?rica Mo?vil)
Market Overview
Despite strong growth in subscriber numbers, the value of Mexico’s wireless market has grown slowly in recent years, due to decreasing prices, the predominant use of voice services, and relatively low data consumption.
For years, Ame?rica Mo?vil (AM), through its Telcel subsidiary, has served nearly 70 percent of the wireless market. In March 2014, however, Mexico’s Federal Institute of Telecommunications declared AM and its subsidiaries “preponderant” players, and restricted the company’s market share. As a result, AM has sold assets and spun off the management of its wireless towers into a new entity called Telesites, with the stated goal of reducing its market share to less than 50 percent.
In January 2015, AT&T completed its acquisition of Nextel Mexico and combined it with Iusacell, which it purchased in 2014, to create AT&T Mexico. The deals added coverage of 76 million potential subscribers and scaled up AT&T’s wireless presence in Mexico to an 8.5 percent share of the market, helping to reduce the country’s market share spread.
Mexico’s regulatory authorities are determined to introduce further price competition in the Mexican market by lowering the barriers to entry for virtual operators. As a result, in November 2016, Alta?n, a consortium of telecom companies and investors, was awarded a license to develop a wholesale 4G LTE network to cover more than 90 percent of Mexico’s population in seven years.
Market Share
As of June 2015, Telcel accounted for nearly 70 percent of Mexico’s wireless subscribers, while Telefo?nica’s Movistar subsidiary (with 21.5 percent) and AT&T Mexico (with 8.5 percent) shared most of the rest.
Recently, Telcel’s market share has declined as rivals begin to compete more fiercely for share.
ARPA Spread
AT&T Mexico commands an ARPA that is around twice Telcel’s and about four times Movistar’s because it does not target low- spending, prepaid customers.
Overall, ARPA spread has remained relatively steady over the past decade, but many anticipate that the recent regulatory initiatives will begin to change this.
This country profile was prepared by Armando Urunuela (armando.urunuela@mx.pwc.com) and Harish Nalinkashan.
Source: Strategy& research and analysis, strategyand.pwc.com/wirelesscommoditization
South Korea
The presence of just three major operators and strong regulation have led to relatively strong commoditization pressure.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015): | KRW 24.4 trillion (US$21.6 billion) |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15, US$): | 4.8% |
| Number of subscriptions (2015): | 60 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015): | 120% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$): | $31.84 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$): | –0.7% |
Major players: KT (KT Corporation), LG U+ (LG Telecom), SKT (SK Telecom)
Market Overview
South Korea’s market is characterized by the presence of just three major operators, whose relative market shares and pricing differentials have held fairly steady. Since 2011, South Korean operators have managed to increase their average ARPA by an impressive 2.5 percent annually, driven in part by increased data usage coinciding with a significant rise in smartphone adoption.
In recent years, the Korean Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning has proposed measures to alter the oligopolistic market dynamics among the three major operators. These include strengthening the role of mobile virtual network operators and licensing a fourth mobile operator.
South Korea’s operators continue to invest heavily in innovation. After driving faster 4G adoption rates than North America and Europe and switching off legacy 2G networks, operators are turning their sights on 5G, announcing plans to launch the next-generation service in time for the country’s hosting of the 2018 Winter Olympics, with nationwide deployment by 2020.
Market Share
SK Telecom leads the market with a subscriber share of over 48 percent in 2016, with KT having a little more than 30 percent of market subscribers and LG U+ having the remaining 20 percent.
Despite a relatively high monthly churn rate of 2 to 3 percent, as subscribers move from company to company in search of (highly subsidized) smartphones and less costly service plans, the spread among these three major competitors has seen limited movement, thanks to little-to-no competition, no new market entrants, heavy subsidies, lack of transparency, and lack of effective regulation.
ARPA Spread
Over the past 10 years, South Korea’s ARPA spread has also been relatively steady, although operators have increased their average ARPA at a rate of 2.5 percent per year since 2011.
This country profile was prepared by Chang-rae Kim (chang-rae.kim@kr.pwc.com) and Matt Kramer Coakley.
Source: Strategy& research and analysis
United States
The mature wireless market has been relatively unaffected by commoditization so far, although competitive pressures are bringing down ARPUs.
Commoditization index score
| Market value (2015) | US$191.9 billion |
| Market growth CAGR (2011–15, US$) | 3.1% |
| Number of subscriptions (2015) | 377.9 million |
| Market penetration rate (2015) | 116% |
| Market ARPA (2015, US$) | $45.02 |
| Market ARPA CAGR (2011–15, US$) | –1.6% |
Major players: AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile USA, U.S. Cellular, Verizon
Market Overview
The U.S. is the second-largest wireless telephony market in the world by total market value, after China. Overall network quality is high, and carriers increasingly compete through price-based tactics and aggressive marketing campaigns. As a result, prices are declining and ARPA spread is narrowing.
Though Verizon’s and AT&T’s networks have traditionally boasted broader coverage and higher quality than those of their smaller domestic rivals, Sprint’s and T-Mobile’s network modernization initiatives have made their networks increasingly competitive with those of the larger players. Sprint reported $5.4 billion of wireless capital expenses in fiscal 2015, and T-Mobile reported $4.7 billion over the same period.
Low-priced virtual operators such as TracFone and Republic Wireless provide an option for consumers less willing to pay a premium for network coverage and quality.
Market Share
Verizon and AT&T together serve nearly 70 percent of U.S. 100% subscribers, with Sprint and T-Mobile splitting most of the remainder, and working hard to make share gains. In 2015, T-Mobile passed Sprint to become the third-largest operator by share of subscribers.
Recent industry consolidation, including the T-Mobile–MetroPCS 75% and AT&T–Leap Wireless deals, is intended to add value offerings to these operators’ portfolios (and remove competition from the low end of the market). This helped T-Mobile lay the foundation to dig out of its fourth-place position, while ensuring that market share among the four major operators, especially AT&T and Verizon, remains steady.
ARPA Spread
Differences in service levels in the U.S. market are declining as competition escalates, with major providers competing intensely on price, quality, brand awareness, and functionality.
The presence of low-cost operators has historically kept the ARPU spread between the top and bottom of the market above 70 percent, but recently, fierce competition and price promotions have led to price convergence.
This country profile was prepared by Florian Groene (florian.groene@pwc.com) and Udayan Gupt.
Source: Strategy& research and analysis, strategyand.pwc.com/wirelesscommoditization
{{filterContent.facetedTitle}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
Contact us
Follow us
© 2019 - 2024 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.