One of the interesting things about n-play bundles in telecom is how they get positioned differently by the players converging on the space. (Remember: “convergence” has only one possible meaning — we’re all heading towards the same customer wallet.)
The other guy’s complementary product often tends to be positioned as the “freebie” with low value. It’s basic economics: make complementary goods cheap, substitute ones expensive. So if you’ve market power in one part of the bundle, this is what you do:

On the other hand, BT is offering the “Freeview” service in its IPTV package (value positioning: low) and focusing on video-on-demand where they feel they have a scale/cost advantage.
PS - Note how Sky aren’t positioning their product based on price, but convenience/personalisation. The logo smacks “advanced technology, familiar uncomplicated Sky experience”. Smart folk, those Murdochs.
Posted by Martin Geddes at 09:48 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/826.
Martin, that's got to be the best definition of convergence ever.
Posted by: at December 7, 2006 11:10 AMAnother possible advantage Sky may have is in 'advertisement-supported convergence services' - subscribers are happy to pay for Sky and suffer ad breaks every 15 minutes, so it's likely they would offer minimal resistance if Sky were to port this thinking to IPTV, VoIP etc. Mind you, it always irked me that you get ads in Pay Per View Boxing, a triple whammy!
Posted by: at December 8, 2006 05:19 PMWhy were you at the Waverly station?
Posted by: at December 8, 2006 10:58 PMWas walking Laima home from nursery school (on Royal Mile) and decided to thread our way back via the station (as it's kind of a short cut if you pop out the back entrance and onto Leith Street).
Posted by: at December 9, 2006 08:28 AM