A “disruptive market force” in France’s mobile phone market has turned an expectation of fat, easy, and fast profits on its head as companies scramble to slash prices to meet the challenge of a new player in town.

That “disruptor” is Free Mobile, owned by French broadband service provider Iliad.  In December, Iliad’s Xavier Niel delivered an early warning shot to other cell phone providers in France:

“Start cutting your prices! We are coming. Go away this weekend, rethink your marketing strategy and that way you might have a chance to continue existing.”

Evidently they were not listening, or did not believe Niel.

In January, Free Mobile arrived with prices shocking to a French market used to paying much more.

For $26.50, Free Mobile delivers a plan with unlimited calling, messaging, 3GB of mobile data and free international calls to 40 countries in North America and Europe.

The nearest comparable plan, Orange France’s “Sosh,” charges more than $66 for a similar range of features.  That’s more than double the price.

“Up until now you have been cash cows,” Niel said during a press conference introducing the service. “Now you can either call your current operator and ask for the same price or join us.”

The French people are doing both. Panicking operators that have lived happily on fat profit margins made possible by a generally uncompetitive marketplace were shocked out of their complacency and have begun lowering their own prices as customers threaten to leave for Free Mobile.

La Poste Mobile for example, which has about 550,000 customers, announced three new plans that start at prices comparable to Free Mobile, but include a subsidized phone — something Free Mobile does not offer.  Instead, Free Mobile splits any upfront equipment costs into installments which run the length of the contract, up to 24 months.

Other companies are turning to their marketing departments to solve the problem, resulting in some wild marketing claims that play fast and loose with the facts.  French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir has heavily criticized a handful of providers that claim to provide unlimited calling and texting but then limit call time to 200 hours per month in the fine print.

Free Mobile’s offer has resonated across France and at least 1,000,000 people signed up in January, overwhelming the country’s number portability system allowing customers to change providers and keep their current phone number.  The overwhelming majority of Free Mobile’s customers come from other carriers.  Sixteen per cent switched from Bouygues Telecom, 22 per cent from SFR and 30 per cent from Orange France, with most of the rest switching from resellers who lease airtime from the three largest providers in France.

Financial analysts opine that if Free Mobile is here to stay, it will have a major impact on the French mobile marketplace, first on resellers that offer service delivered over other companies’ networks.  French unions fear their workers will pay the price as providers protect investments and management perks.

CGT, SUD and the CFE-CGC suggest wage and job cuts for workers will come as companies look for savings to offset their profit losses.  One report predicted as many as 10,000 job cuts in the mobile industry in the future.

Ironically, while Iliad, a French broadband provider, has challenged the French mobile market and has brought price savings to consumers, American cable companies capitulated on competition, selling their wireless spectrum to the country’s largest wireless company, Verizon Wireless.  Additionally, American cable and phone companies have agreed to market their products together in bundle offers, potentially eliminating any serious competition between them.

AT&T increases upgrade fee. (Photo courtesy: Engadget)

AT&T has announced it is doubling the price of its equipment upgrade fee, now charging $36 when a customer activates a new phone on their wireless account.

Our regular reader Scott sent word AT&T raised the upgrade fee Feb. 12, from $18 to $36, to “cover their costs. ” The fee now matches that charged by Sprint.

From AT&T’s official statement:

Wireless devices today are more sophisticated than ever before. And because of that, the costs associated with upgrading to a new device have increased and is reflected in our new upgrade fee. This fee isn’t unique to AT&T and this is the first time we’re changing it in nearly 10 years.

Wireless companies in North America encourage more frequent phone upgrades because of their business model: pitching subsidized phones in return for a two-year contract commitment, along with higher-priced service plans which gradually recoup the cost of the subsidy.

Consumers who hang on to their phones longer than two years continue to pay higher prices for service plans designed for those who always upgrade phones every two years at contract renewal time.  Phone companies also prefer customers who live under a term contract because they are less likely to switch providers.

In the past, loyal customers not only received extra incentives and discounts when they renewed their contracts, they also had these kinds of service fees waived.  No more.  Most companies have discontinued extra upgrade discounts for existing customers and increasingly refuse to waive service and equipment fees.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

AT&T has lost another customer.

PC World‘s Tony Bradley noticed reception on AT&T’s network in suburban Houston has been losing bars in more places than it has maintained over the last few years.

“[…] for reasons unknown to me the AT&T network in my area has been getting steadily worse. There have been a couple of weak spots in the same location for years. Rather than improving and eliminating those weak spots, the weak spots became dead zones…and then proliferated.

I don’t live in the boonies. I live in suburban Houston in a community that is very near a major highway, and yet there are four or five areas with literally no service. I could almost understand if the signal decreased, or if it switched from 3G to the older Edge network in places, but in 2012 in an affluent suburb near a highway there is no excuse for a company like AT&T to have any area where my phone literally displays “No Service”.

Even with the growing dead zone epidemic, I was still reluctant to switch. I maintained that the grass is always greener, and that I was better off to stick with the devil I know. That is, until I moved.

I only moved four miles, and I am still in the same community I was in before. However, in my new house the AT&T signal is too flaky and unreliable. I have to walk to special places in my house to get a workable signal, and even then I am told constantly that I am “breaking up” by the person on the other end of the line. I often miss calls because there is no signal and my phone doesn’t even ring. I don’t realize I even had a call until I receive the voicemail.”

AT&T’s response to these kinds of reception problems is to suggest customers purchase one of their 3G MicroCell units, which delivers a wireless signal inside your home or business connected through your broadband account.  But Bradley took exception that AT&T would charge him $200 (negotiated down to $100) and a monthly service fee just to mitigate the company’s own reception problems.  AT&T has since lost Bradley as a long-lasting customer — he took his business to Verizon Wireless, which offers better reception in his neighborhood.

The columnist cannot understand why AT&T would treat a long-term customer so poorly.

“AT&T could have kept me happy, but chose to let me leave instead,” Bradley writes.  “So, let me get this straight. AT&T isn’t capable of delivering the service I am already paying for, and the proposed solution is that I spend $200 (or $100 after a lengthy and heated debate), plus additional money every month for the privilege of routing my calls over the broadband Internet service I am also paying for? That was really the last straw for me with AT&T.”

Christmas in January.

AT&T and some of the company’s best friends in Congress have attached wireless America’s legislative wishlist to the must-pass Payroll Tax Bill that will temporarily reduce Social Security taxes for millions of Americans.  Now AT&T and other cell phone companies want their piece of the action.

Michael Weinberg at Public Knowledge has sounded the alarm attacks on Net Neutrality, spectrum auctions, and White Space Wi-Fi have turned up in amendments to a bill that Big Telecom is convinced must pass.  Weinberg explains:

No Net Neutrality Protections.  Forget your feelings about the FCC’s formal Open Internet Rules.  An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn would prevent any restrictions on network management, block any requirements to make connectivity available on a wholesale basis (which would increase competition), and stop the FCC from passing a rule allowing users to attach any non-harmful device to the network.  As a result, the winner of the spectrum auction would be able to throttle, block, and discriminate however it sees fit – something that runs counter to any definition of network neutrality.

No Safeguards Against Further Consolidation.  It is no secret that one of the reasons that there are only four nationwide wireless carriers (and two dominant ones) is that only a few companies control most of the available spectrum in the United States.  This amendment would prevent the FCC from making sure that new spectrum goes towards new or under-provisioned competitors instead of being further consolidated by AT&T and Verizon.   That’s probably why AT&T is pushing so hard for this amendment.

No Super-Wifi.  One of the greatest boons of the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting was supposed to be the creation of unlicensed “whitespaces” or “super-wifi.”  This new spectrum – which is much better at communicating long distances and through walls than current wifi spectrum – would be used cooperatively by everyone and usher in a new era of wireless devices.  However, a third amendment would destroy the FCC’s power to allocate some of this great spectrum for unlicensed uses.  That means that opportunity would simply pass us by.

Weinberg notes consumer advocates like Public Knowledge are now fighting all three amendments.  There are opportunities to strip them from the bill as it works its way through the legislative process.  Those backing the amendments hope the public doesn’t find out.

They just did.

Obama

In his State of the Union address last night to Congress, President Barack Obama complained that America’s digital infrastructure is inadequate to allow entrepreneurs and small businesses to successfully market their goods and services over the Internet.

“So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges, a power grid that wastes too much energy, an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small-business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

President Obama also touched on the problem of online piracy and imported counterfeit goods.  Last week, controversy over online piracy legislation including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), brought consumer opposition to both, temporarily shelving the measures.  But the president acknowledged the problem was not going away.

“It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated,” he said. “Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit (TEU) that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders.”

Upton

Republicans fired back at the president over his rural broadband remarks, accusing the administration and the Federal Communications Commission of supporting pre-conditions on forthcoming spectrum auctions.  One House committee chairman tasked with broadband issues said the FCC was supporting policies that could reduce auction proceeds by reserving certain frequencies for up-and-coming wireless competitors or restrict how much spectrum a current market leader like AT&T or Verizon Wireless could acquire.

“The President said we have an incomplete high-speed broadband network, but his Federal Communications Commission is protecting its turf instead of joining us to free up airwaves to build the next generation communications networks,” said House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has had little regard for the House Republican-backed proposal that could potentially tie the FCC’s hands to set rules for spectrum auctions.  House Republicans also oppose setting aside certain spectrum for free, unlicensed high-power Wi-Fi use, preferring to auction as much spectrum as possible.

Earlier this month, Upton blasted the FCC chairman for opposing a “winner take all” auction approach:

“Bluster aside, it sounds like we have a federal agency more concerned about preserving its own power than offering serious improvements as we prepare to finalize this legislation. We worked with the FCC’s auction experts to give the agency the legitimate flexibility it needs to design the mechanics of the auction. It’s time to stop the FCC from engaging in political mischief that will hurt competition and steal money from the taxpayer’s coffers. Don’t take our word for it – look at the 2008 auction. The FCC imposed conditions on the C and D blocks that ultimately prevented the D-block from selling and pushed smaller carriers out of the auction. Taxpayers lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion, and spectrum remains sidelined. And speaking of protecting taxpayers, it’s time for the FCC and others to be honest about how taxpayers would be affected by their plans to give away valuable spectrum to favored constituencies. Our goal is to strike the right balance by keeping plenty of opportunity for unlicensed use without forcing taxpayers to forfeit any return on a resource that everyone agrees is worth billions.”