1. February, 2016
Industry Analysis
Furious Five
Brooke Allen
Jonathan Ashworth
Christopher Howard
Darian Johnson
Christopher Puszkar

2. Executive Summary & Introduction
This report concerns the competitive structure of the U.S. wireless telecommunications
industry. Generally, the industry is comprised of firms offering radio-based cellular networks to
aid in the transfer of information and communication amongst individuals and corporate
customers. This industry is concerned with the production of paging and cellular phone services,
as well as wireless internet and video features. The aim of this report is to better understand the
competitive forces surrounding the wireless telecommunications industry, and to highlight the
competitive strategies of the major firms in the market. Tools used include an extensive analysis
of the traditional Porter’s Five Forces, which offer a summary of the internal competitive nature
of an industry. Meanwhile, the external factors will be analyzed at depth using PESTEL factors
which influence the wireless telecommunications industry. Finally, the report will examine the
specific strategies of the major firms within the industry, and summarize the overall
attractiveness of the industry, as well as the Key Success Factors (KSFs) concerning wireless
telecommunications.
This report finds that the US wireless telecommunications industry is a highly
competitive one. The four major players are found to be Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint.
These competitors are affected by political, legal, and technological factors that constrain and
challenge their competitive decisions from outside the industry. Meanwhile, a Five Forces
analysis of the internal market shows there exists the influence of internal suppliers and intense
rivalry amongst the competing firms to decide the competitive strategies of each player. Finally,
the three KSFs are found to be customer satisfaction, technological innovation, and cost
minimization.

3. In summary, the wireless telecommunications industry has high potential for future
growth, and remains an attractive industry. Despite this, the entry costs are high enough to
dissuade most firms from joining in competition. Finally, competing firms are constantly
challenged to innovate their product offering in order to differentiate themselves from their rivals
in a volatile and always-evolving industry.
1) The Industry's Dominant Economic Features
The wireless telecommunications industry is substantial, innovative, and extremely
competitive. In order for firms to maximize profits and continue to raise revenues year after year
they must increase their subscriber base and retain existing customers. The industry does face a
few driving economic factors that mold the dynamic of telecommunications. These main factors
include: rivals and their size and technological change.
The wireless telecommunications industry is heavily impacted on rivals and their size. The
four main competitors are Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Of these, Verizon leads the
industry with approximately 38% of market share. Meanwhile, AT&T is a close competitor with
33% of the market. This leaves the other 29% divided between Sprint at 13% and T-Mobile with
16% according to IBISWorld. The industry is split between two similar sized companies
competing against each other while still competing within the entire industry.
Additionally, the other large economic factor in the industry is technological change. If one
company adapts a new broadband capability first, it leverages itself over other companies and has
potential to transfer business away from competitors. The difference between 3G and 4G
technology can dampen or strengthen the industry profitability among the other big 3 companies.
Technology life cycles are short-lived, thus companies must continually develop technologies for

4. the customer as the phones themselves are not differential. The phone is just one piece of the
demand, but the service of communication is what drives consumers to pay.
Furthermore, the wireless telecommunications industry’s overall purpose is to provide
subscribers with the ability to communicate internationally as well locally through calling,
messaging, and internet connectivity. Consumers want to talk to others and surf the web on their
devices, bottom-line. Along with wireless technology, there is also the segment wireline
telecommunications (landlines) provided by these competitors but as innovation progresses,
wireline is not the focus of selling service. In our analysis we will be focusing on the latter of these
segments.
2) Porter's Five Forces
2.1 Threat of New Entrants
The threat of new entrants in the wireless telecommunications industry is a relatively weak
force, due to the high barriers of entry. The big competitors in this industry benefit from large
capital investment, economies of scale, and diversification that, combined, create stark barriers to
entry for smaller firms. Potential future entrants include Google, Apple, and Microsoft as they
move to expand their products towards connecting users in a similar way to the wireless telecom
sector(Google 10-k, Apple 10-k, Microsoft 10-k).
Capital Requirements: It comes as no surprise that the biggest barrier of entry is the access
to the finances needed for significant capital acquisitions to absorb the costs of expanding networks
and services that become obsolete seemingly overnight. Transmission systems need to be replaced
as frequently as every two years; for small operators, the financial challenges of keeping up with
rapid technological change and depreciation can be monumental (Rajasekar 241). This may cause

5. operators to continue to stay in wireless telecommunications despite earning low or negative
returns due to perceived barriers to exit. This may result in extensive competitive pressures as
excess concentration lowers the overall market profitability.
Economies of Scale: Wireless telecommunications incumbents have established well-
entrenched positions, making market entry difficult. Due to high fixed costs with low marginal
costs and low marginal revenue, the top companies heavily rely on economies of scale to drive
prices down (Marketline). These demand conditions require a new entrant firm to be secure in
other industries or post-entry prices will lead to an economic loss due to low profit margins.
Diversification:Firms already established in the industry also have strategically diversified
products to protect them against downturns in any single market, something that new competitors
wouldn’t have unless, again, they were previously vested in other industries. Because of this, it is
increasingly difficult for new companies to compete with the existing quality and prices, which
may dissuade potential new competitors.
2.2 Competitive Rivalry
Competitive rivalry can be defined as the efforts that existing competitors make in order to
sustain and improve their market share, revenue, profitability, and image. High rivalry tends to
limit profitability as price discounting, introduction of new products, service improvements, and
advertising make margins smaller. Strong competitors in the wireless telecommunication sector,
like Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, have created an intense competitive rivalry in the
industry; classifying it as a strong force.
Size & Power of Competitors:In the wireless telecommunications industry, as in any other,
the number of competitors is important as they all share the same segment of potential buyers.

6. 97.6% of the market is controlled by the top four companies, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and
Sprint; with over 70% belonging to Verizon and AT&T (IBISWorld). The market share of the
industry players gives an important indication of their power and hence their ability to pressure
rival companies.
Consolidation Partnerships: Wireless telecommunications operators have moved to
cellular tower consolidation partnerships with competitors to eliminate redundant costs, expand
coverage and improve profitability. The industry has shown consistent signs of consolidation in
recent years, with 2014 marking the first year that capital investment and the number of cell sites
has decreased (CTIA). However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has indicated
that industry consolidation has reached its limits for AT&T and Verizon, the industry’s largest
players, and any new consolidations are subject to regulations. For example the approval of
Verizon’s deal to purchase wireless spectrum licenses from cable companies was contingent upon
Verizon exchanging spectrum licenses with T-Mobile (U.S. Department of Justice).
Lateral Competition: In addition the convergence between wireless telecommunications,
technology, media and the consumer electronics market, is causing lateral competition. As
competition extends into converging markets it creates opportunities for growth and competitive
threats in this wider market. Companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft are blurring the lines
between these markets in an attempt to take advantage of arising opportunities. As leading
companies in their respective industries, they possess the necessary finances and diversification to
be potentially successful in wireless telecommunications and possibly drive existing competitors
out through innovation.
2.3 Bargaining Powerof Buyers (And Who They Are)

7. Buyers of wireless telecommunications products and services include both individual and
commercial segments. The increasing amount of choice due to low differentiation is creating a
growth in the bargaining power of buyers; with the potential to move from a moderate to a strong
force. The most influential factors in buyer decision making are price sensitivity, perceived quality
of service, and availability of market information (Rajasekar 245). All of this, as well as low
customer loyalty ratings and negligible switching costs for buyers, means that they can switch
between competitors they view as superior at any time. As the industry continues to mature, buyers
ultimately acquire more information to further strengthen their buyer power.
The reason that this force might not be considered strong, at this moment, is due to the
oligopolistic nature of the wireless telecom industry (Marketline). With a low level of established
incumbent players and a high number of buyers, the buyer power of a single customer is
diminished. It would take many buyers reaching the same conclusion from their available market
information to create a noticeable impact. However, this has caused problems for wireless telecom
companies in the past. For example, Sprint is largely considered by buyers to lack adequate
wireless coverage compared to its competitors; which can be further examined in their low growth
rate and high churn rate (Appendix Table II). This becomes a double edged sword, as any
information regarding advancements in wireless coverage by Sprint will take time to reach a wide
base of potential buyers.
2.4 Bargaining Powerof Suppliers (And Who They Are)
One of the primary forces affecting an industry and its competitive climate is the influence
of suppliers within the industry supply chain. Any industry requires raw materials, labor, and other
intermediate supplies that are used by firms in the production and offering of a final good

8. (Investopedia). The same is certainly true for the US wireless telecommunications industry. For
example, a phone sold by Verizon requires components such as semiconductors, fiber-optic cables,
and circuit boards. These subcomponents in turn are produced from copper, aluminum, and other
raw materials. In addition, network owners negotiate contracts with the carrier firms, and influence
the reliability of the network sold to the market. Therefore, firms are dependent on each step in the
supply chain to produce and sell its products in the mass market. The factors that determine
supplier influence are as follows:
Size and Concentration of Suppliers: In general, the higher the size of a given supplier,
the more influence it will have over an industry. A larger supplier can afford to raise prices, and
capture some of the profit from the major players in the industry (QuickMBA). Concentration here
refers to the ratio of suppliers to buyers. In the US, the four major firms have a limited choice of
providers for intermediate goods, such as broadcast towers and network providers so the higher
concentration of suppliers contributes to their large influence in the industry.
SwitchingCosts:Switching Costs refer to the ability of a firm (such as Verizon), to replace
one supplier with an alternative. Marketline reports that many carriers rely upon virtual network
operators (Marketline). These are large suppliers that offer wireless telecom services and network
services to providers, usually through long term contracts. Switching costs are then very high,
since firms cannot easily exit such a contract.
Product Quality: As the threshold for product quality increases, the number of available
suppliers diminishes. The US wireless telecommunications industry is a highly competitive one,
where the ability to offer extensive, reliable network coverage is key to firm success. All four
major players offer similar services, such as widespread coverage, 4G LTE internet speed, and
unlimited talk and text. Given the similar product and service offerings, the quality of those

9. offerings must be high in order for any particular firm to avoid losing a competitive edge. In the
wireless telecommunications industry, network reliability is a critical strategic factor for the
success of a firm. Further, there are relatively few suppliers providing strong, reliable networks.
Since the network quality is of utmost importance, the choice of supplier is minimal, and the
bargaining power of any one supplier is higher.
2.5 Substitute Goods
In determining the competitive level of an industry, it is vital to consider the potential threat
of substitute goods. In the case of the wireless telecommunications industry, the primary
competing good is internet-based communication services. Services such as Skype calling are
available for free, however the quality and scope of such options is limited compared to the
reliability of telephone communications. For instance, the availability of Wi-Fi hotspots
determines the breadth of coverage for an internet communications source. Further, many of the
service providers now offer service bundles that include internet connections via data plans. The
emergence of these internet service providers has nulled the effect of substitute internet
communications methods. Thus, the effect of substitute goods on the wireless telecommunications
industry is low relative to the other forces operating in the market.
2.6 Complement Goods
As a potential sixth factor, we consider the effect of complement goods on the wireless
telecommunications industry. In his article on telecommunications, John Haring identifies
personal computers and tablets as possible complements to the capabilities of wireless
telecommunications equipment (Haring). Companies such as Google and Apple sell computers

10. and phones that rely upon the reliability of network providers. Meanwhile, these communications
providers are able to differentiate themselves in the market by offering bundles of data plan and
devices sold by cellphone companies. Therefore, the influence of complementary goods and
industries is not trivial to the wireless telecommunications companies in their strategic behaviors.
Summary of Forces and Attractiveness
What follows is a brief description of the impact of each of Porter’s Five Forces on the
wireless telecommunications industry.
1. Threat of Potential New Entrants: Low
The big competitors in this industry benefit from large capital investment, economies of
scale, and diversification that, combined, diminish the threat of potential new entrants.
2. Competitive Rivalry in the Industry: High
The low level of service differentiation escalates rivalry with the top players competing
intensely via quality measures, brand awareness, functionality, and value pricing.
3. Bargaining Power of Buyers: Moderate
The increasing amount of choice due to low differentiation is creating a growth in the
bargaining power of buyers. However, due to the oligopolistic nature of this industry, the
buyer power of a single customer is lower than expected.
4. Bargaining Power of Suppliers: High
For the telecommunications industry, internal suppliers hold significant influence on the
strategic decisions of each major player in the market.
5. Threat of Substitute Products: Low

11. For the foreseeable future, the threat of substitute products or services is relatively low in
the telecommunications industry.
6. Influence of Complementary products: Moderate
Complementary goods, such as smartphones, are important benefactors of the advances to
communications technology. However, it must be said that their influence is less direct to
the strategic decisions of service providers competing in the industry, as compared to the
other prevalent forces.
3) Drivers of Change in the Broad Environment & Impact
Trends in the United States as well as world market are changing rapidly. According to
PESTEL analysis, the specific drivers of changes in the industry are technological, legal, and
political trends. While environmental, economic, and sociocultural trends are still factors, they will
not have as severe an impact on the industry. These changes will continue to drastically shape the
way the telecommunications industry looks and continue to do business.
The trend that looks to have the most impact on the telecommunication industry is
technological. The driving technological trend for telecommunications is the decrease in demand
of traditional wireline services such as landline phones and other voice-only services. This is a
result of the rising popularity of new technology like broadband enabled wireless devices and other
data intensive products (Blau). The wireless segment is expected to be the most lucrative in 2015,
with total revenues equal to 60.7% of the market's overall value (Marketline). Following the 2008
financial crisis, consumers were left with less discretionary spending and chose to eliminate
landlines in favor of wireless connections (Blau). From 2008 to 2014, households with only
wireless services increased dramatically from 20.2% to 47%. As a result, annualized revenue

12. growth is expected to be 3.2% over the next five years (Blau). These technological changes have
forced companies in the industry to rapidly change their focus of which services and products to
provide as well as changing the way these companies compete with one another. Carriers within
the industry have “long competed on price, but S&P Capital IQ sees a shift toward competing on
speed” (Zino). Telecom companies are already looking towards the implementation of 5G
technology by 2020, even though 4G only recently became nationwide in the past few years
(Blau).These technological drivers are motivating companies in the industry to compete for the
position of leading technological innovator. The pressure to innovate with services such as 5G is
one such example of technological pressure in the market.
While rapidly changing technological trends remain the main drivers of change in the
telecommunication industry, legal forces also heavily shape the industry, as telecommunications
is continuously one of the most regulated industries. This includes the recent emphasis on “net
neutrality” legal regulations. Most notably, as S&P Capital states, the FCC “will not allow paid
prioritization having certain online traffic (i.e., no "fast lanes")” (Zino). Simply put, internet
providers cannot play favorites; giving certain customers who pay a fee for faster connectivity,
while slowing the traffic of those customers that do not pay. Telecom carriers argue in opposition
that they have invested a substantial amount of capital to provide better and faster service to
customers. They point to companies like Google and YouTube that are generating returns without
investing in the infrastructure that underlies their operations (Blau). These new rules have
increased the level of outside competition by giving companies like Google a potentially unfair
competitive advantage against the telecom industry.
In addition to the already enacted regulations driving change in the telecommunications
industry, the evolving political landscape has a high likelihood of further increasing regulation.

13. For example, the FCC began probing into the level of competition among the wireless sector
beginning in 2009, which could lead to a broader investigation of the telecommunications industry
as a whole (Blau). Additionally, the FCC is looking into additional antitrust laws as it receives an
increasing amount of merger and acquisition requests. This is a result of the fact that generally, the
most efficient way to cut costs is to merge with another company. In 2009, while Verizon won
approval to purchase Alltell, AT&T dropped its bid for T-Mobile in 2011 on account of the Justice
Department suing to block the deal and the FCC showing its intentions to fight the merger (AT&T
10-k). In April of 2013 the Justice Department’s top antitrust enforcer stated he supported limiting
wireless companies airwaves, showing support for limits that will allow small carriers to compete
in the highly concentrated market (Blau). If these political forces succeed in implementing
upcoming regulations for the traditional telecommunications companies and are not enforced to
possible competitors like Google or Cable companies, this could place the major players at a
competitive disadvantage.
4) Companies in the Strongest & Weakest Positions
In the wireless telecommunications industry, there are many competing firms. The top
three would be Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, respectively. The power and position of these firms
within the wireless telecommunications industry is determined by several factors. Of which, the
most important are bandwidth (speed and reliability), price (for services and devices), customer
service and satisfaction, and differentiation of products and services. See Tables I and III in the
Appendix for the following analysis of the leading firms’ competitive strategies.
Verizon is the largest firm of the industry that emphasizes network reliability to its
customers, and its dominant bandwidth across the U.S. reflects this. Verizon’s recent increase in

14. nation-wide reliable service was achieved in part by the adoption of CDMA (code division
multiple access) technology that allowed Verizon to use a 4G LTE network. Verizon has also
adopted EV-DO (evolution data optimized) technology, which has successfully improved data
transmission rates. Many of the strategies that Verizon has used would not have been possible
without its impressive reserves of capital resources. Recently, Verizon implemented Verizon
Wireless, to focus its strategy on the wireless sector of telecommunications. Verizon has also taken
initiatives in order to differentiate its brand. These initiatives include roaming agreements, VoIP
(Voice over Internet Protocol), new spectrum acquisition leading to the new XLTE bandwidth,
and an increase in its number of retail stores in the U.S (Verizon 10k). Something that Verizon has
yet to improve is its poor service in the global wireless industry. Unlike AT&T, which has made
great efforts to improve this aspect, Verizon has invested a substantial amount of capital primarily
in the U.S. wireless industry. Another weakness that Verizon carries is its fairly poor customer
service and sub-par online customer accounting.
AT&T is close behind Verizon in terms of bandwidth. However, AT&T is ahead of all
other wireless communications players in terms of geographic coverage considering its impressive
international presence. AT&T also has the fastest wireless network speed, based on a study by
PCMag. Unlike Verizon’s strategy to focus on the U.S. wireless market, AT&T’s newest strategy
involves focusing on the global market. Another difference AT&T has from Verizon is that it is
more focused on selling devices rather than data and service plans. Similarly to Verizon, one
weakness AT&T has is that its impressive size compromises its flexibility.
T-Mobile’s strategy is to expand by acquiring customers from other carriers, particularly
Verizon and AT&T, and new customers without carriers. T-Mobile aligns itself competitively by
pointing out the flaws of other carriers and offering an effective alternative. T-Mobile has been

15. awarded best customer service by JDPower, positively reflecting its competitive strategy to meet
specific customer needs. With their recent “Un-Carrier” promotion, they have taken several steps
in the right direction as far as exposing the flaws of their competitors and gaining new customers
with their unique offerings. This plan seems to be working considering T-Mobile’s significant
wireless revenue growth rate of 21% from 2014 to 2015. Although T-Mobile’s cost leadership
strategy is proving effective, it does not yet have the abundance of resources pertaining to capital,
human resources, and spectrum.
It must be acknowledged that T-Mobile is implementing the most potentially effective
strategy. As is apparent in the strategic map in Appendix Figure III, T-Mobile is the fastest growing
wireless network provider. They have the best customer service with a 5/5 star rating from
JDPower. Although Verizon’s market share dwarfs T-Mobile’s, Verizon must be cautious for T-
Mobile may be their next prime competitor in the near future if they keep growing at such a high
rate. The strategic map reinforces the notion that AT&T is Verizon’s current primary competitor.
Meanwhile, Sprint has the worst customer service rating as well as the lowest revenue growth rate
and the highest revenue per employee. This implies that Sprint must boost its customer service
rating and, therefore, increase its revenue by hiring more employees.
5) Key Success Factors for Competitive Success
In order for the wireless communications industry to stay profitable, these are the three key
success factors KSFs: consumer satisfaction, technological innovation, and cost minimization.
Since the subscribers are the ones that the industry is targeting, their satisfaction is important
because transferability of services to another provider is a firm’s biggest threat (as mentioned in
our strategic group map). Technological innovation is a key success because the technology world

16. of broadband is constantly changing. (Sprint 10-K) R&D is a big expense for the next innovative
technology such as 5G to attract a larger consumer base, pleasing the current subscribers with
better data efficiency. Lastly, cost minimization is notable too because if the supplier raises the
price of a network, then the provider must push the burden of this cost onto the customers, resulting
in higher churn and lower revenues. Also, keeping cost as low as possible keeps plans competitive
so no one company loses due to higher costs of production.
The key success factors do not change across segments nor over time. Verizon, AT&T, T-
Mobile, and Sprint all need to focus on the three keys for remaining staying segmented in the
market. In the future, if Sprint does not increase its customer satisfaction specifically, it will
continue to increase its churn rate and will eventually be too small in the market and will be forced
to exit. Thus, leading to only 3 major dominators of telecommunication and altering market share.
Engineers alongside the research and development team of the players will need to continue
innovating cutting edge technology of new data services in order to entice these new potential
subscribers. Hence, the telecommunication industry requires excellent retention rates and growth
of subscribers through low costs and innovative technologies.
6) Analysis and Summary:
Industry’s Prospects
In summary, the wireless telecommunications industry is a highly competitive one. The
four major players interact with each other, and with key suppliers and customers. Meanwhile,
political and legal pressures dictate the strategic decisions of each firm, while ever-changing
technologies create a turbulent and constantly-evolving playing field for the major providers.

17. The pressure to maintain profitability, and stay ahead in such a competitive environment is
typical of the wireless communications industry.
There exists a high potential for future growth in the industry, due to the rapidly evolving
technologies. Such innovations challenge competing companies to continually be on the lookout
for the next big product or service. Meanwhile, competitive forces will only grow stronger, as
pressures to increase customer service efforts by all industry competitors become harder to
avoid. Certainly, for Sprint, the lesson must be that customer service and proper branding are key
to high revenues, and ultimately, company success. The driving forces of customer service,
technological innovation, and cost minimization will certainly increase profitability for the firms
that abide by these principles. Given current trends of revenue growth, we expect T-Mobile to
become a prominent player in the coming years. Meanwhile, Sprint will likely fade from the
competitive field without a change in its strategic focus. Finally, AT&T and Verizon will
continue to lead in the industry, due to their high capital resources, and emphasis on R&D and
customer service. In general, those companies that differentiate themselves appropriately in the
industry will remain viable competitors in the future.
The question remains how the competitors in the wireless telecommunications industry
can protect their success, and safeguard against industry threats. Given the volatile nature of
technological change in the industry, it is apparent that innovation of products and services is
vital to survival and success for the leading competitors. Strategies pursued by AT&T and
Verizon, which emphasize high capital stock and extensive research and development programs,
lend themselves to corporate success. Failing this success, it will be easy for another player to
capture market share by outpacing competitors in technological innovations. On the other hand,
the cost of maintaining high capital growth is the risk of falling into debt. Without a contingency

18. plan for removing budgetary deficits, long-term profitability could be impacted. For a company
like T-Mobile, gaining a loyal customer base will pay off in the long run by increasing revenue
growth, allowing for future capital investments. Despite this, the uncertainty of relying upon
customer service is reflected by the ease at which customers can switch from one company to
another for alternative phone plans, or better coverage. Brand loyalty is largely volatile for
cellular customers. This could be significant for any competing firm, due to the inherent risk of
lost revenue due to high churn rate of its customers. This impact is especially severe for T-
Mobile, which differentiates itself in part through superior customer service.
The wireless telecommunications industry is certainly an attractive one. The four biggest
players all have potential for growth and high profits in the coming years. With that said, entry
costs are high enough that the industry remains off-limits for many smaller firms. Nevertheless,
the dynamic nature of the industry promises high return to any firm that can orient its strategy
towards product differentiation and technological innovation. The potential for long-term
profitability, contingent on these success factors, remains a lucrative draw for firms both inside
and out, to compete within the industry.

19. Works Cited
"Annual Wireless Industry Survey." Everything Wireless. CTIA - The Wireless Association,
2014. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Apple Inc. (2015) Form 10-k 2015. Retrieved from SEC Edgar website.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312515356351/d17062d10k.htm
AT&T Inc. (2014) Form 10-k 2014. Retrieved from SEC Edgar website.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732717/000073271715000016/ye14_10k.htm
Blau, Gavan. "IBISWorld Industry Report 51721 - Wireless Telecommunication Carriers in the
US." IBIS World. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 February, 2016.
Google Inc. (2014). Form 10-k 2014. Retrieved from SEC Edgar website.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877615000008/goog20141231
10-k.htm
Haring, John. “Telecommunications.” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Library of
Economics, n.d. Web. 22 February, 2016
"Justice Department Requires Changes to Verizon-Cable Company Transactions to Protect
Consumers, Allows Procompetitive Spectrum Acquisitions to Go Forward." Justice
News. U.S. Department of Justice, 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Microsoft Corporation. (2015). Form 10-k 2015. Retrieved from SEC Edgar website.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312515272806/d918813d10k.ht
m
PCR study. (2015). Retrieved February 18, 2016, from
http://www.jdpower.com/ratings/study/Wireless-Customer-Care-Ratings/598ENG/Full-
Service/144
“Porter’s Five Forces: A Model for Industry Analysis.” QuickMBA. Quick MBA, n.d. Web. 21
February, 2016.
Rajasekar, James, and Mueid Al Raee. "An Analysis Of The Telecommunication Industry In The
Sultanate Of Oman Using Michael Porter’s Competitive Strategy Model."
Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal 23.3 (2013): 234-59.
Research Gate. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Segan, S. (2015, June 22). Fastest Mobile Networks 2015. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2485837,00.asp

20. Sprint Corporation. (2014). Form 10-K 2014. Retrieved from SEC Edgar website
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/101830/000010183015000012/sprintcorp20141
0-k.html
“The Industry Handbook: The Telecommunications Industry.” Investopedia. n.d. Web. 22
February, 2016.
T-Mobile US, Inc. (2014). Form 10-K 2014. Retrieved from SEC Edgar website
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1283699/000128369916000073/tmus12312015f
orm10-k.htm
"United States- Telecommunication Services." Marketline. N.p. 11 February 2016. Web. 20
February 2016.
"U.S. Wireless Carriers: 2014 In Review." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 26 Dec. 2014. Web. 23
Feb. 2016.
Verizon Communications, Inc. (2014). Form 10-K 2014. Retrieved from SEC Edgar website
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732712/000119312515057710/0001193125-15-
057710-index.htm
West, Page. Strategic Management: Value Creation, Sustainability and Performance. 3rd Ed.
North Carolina: Riderwood Publishing, 2014. Electronic.
"Wireless Customer Care Performance Study Vol. 1." J.D. Power. McGraw Hill Financial, 2016.
Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
Zino, Angelo. "Telecommunications." S&P Capital IQ. N.p, n.d. Web. 21 February, 2016.

21. Appendix
Table I. Wireless Telecom Customer Satisfaction, Revenue/Employee, & Growth Rate
Table II. Forbes US Wireless Carriers 2014: Year in Review
Table III.

22. Graph I. Company Growth: Customer Satisfaction vs. Efficiency