Frenzied crowds. Wild gimmicks. Fans with their own nickname. Outside of an Apple store, you don’t see this
kind of flash and glam often in the telecom world.

So, yeah, it’s fun (though maybe not for
France Telecom, SFR and Bouygues Telecom) to read the articles because of the
crowds, the
fan nickname (Freenauts) and Niel’s history of successfully disrupting the
French broadband world. But is this
really a long-term threat to the established operators? Or is it all smoke and mirrors.
The consensus in the telecom press seems to
be: smoke and mirrors.
Morningstar has the most concise analysis
(though there were good takes from Ovum,
Fitch
Ratings and Stanimir
Minov in Austria, among others). And
here are the reasons why
Morningstar says Free Mobile will not shake up the French telecom market: Free’s
prices are below cost; high data usage could overwhelm Free’s network; the
established operators will fight back; French consumers like to shop in stores,
which Free does not have; and France has a high rate of contract customers,
meaning people cannot switch operators easily.
That all makes sense. If you focus on the
business model, it seems clear that Free can sign up only a certain – and very
low – percentage of the market, and its prices will not be sustainable.
But what about technically, with what Free
says is an
innovative mix of Wi-Fi, HSPA+ 3G, femtocells and its all-fiber backbone?
This is debatable. Like with Republic Wireless in the US (see
our post on that here),
a patchwork service can never match a true mobile network in coverage and
quality. But I am intrigued by their focus on Wi-Fi, as
is GigaOm. If you put together Free,
Republic Wireless, AT&T with its “hotspots,” plus operator True in Thailand
investing in USD 48 million in Wi-Fi networks, well, it’s some kind of Wi-Fi
trend.
Is it one we need to be paying closer
attention to, even in terms of voice and SMS?
No comments:
Post a Comment