dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-01-23 09:04:43: Earlier this month new French wireless ISP Free started turning heads by offering some disruptive pricing, including a free level of base service that includes 60 voice minutes and 60 SMS's. ..



gballer

@reyrey.net

I want

some of whatever this guy is smoking!

podstolom

join:2010-01-25
Wichita, KS

France Telecom

sounds like France's verion of Verizon Wireless. Greedy and stingy, all puffed and perfumed up in claims of innovation, security and reliability. Malarkey. I don't know how much private investment plays a role over there, but I would imagine with Sarkosy in office it's all about profits and investor dividends, same as here.
Expand your moderator at work


vivelaAnon

@Princeton.EDU

FT isn't that bad...

I've used Orange (French Telecom) and their prices are competitive with carrier like ATT, TMoble (Deutsche Telekom), Virgin...
Plus while across the pond, they use phones differently than we do (more texting, less talking, more data and less intrusive). While on the metro and tube, I saw adverts that showed way better talk/text pricing plans from 3rd parties.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to podstolom

Re: France Telecom

said by podstolom:

sounds like France's verion of Verizon Wireless.

And like Verizon, will probably keep its customers based on reliability and coverage reputation and not on low price. Sounds like their CEO knows what he is doing. Don't get in to a price war when you are selling a premium service. That ruins your reputation and your profits.


ASTONMARTIN7

@colsonassociates.com

Free is No Match for Orange

The CEO is 100% right. It makes no sense to race to see who cuts prices the lowest. The telecom business requires HEAVY investments...Free is not prepared for that. Orange has a global reputation for high quality, Free is only a French brand, hence Orange will probably just buy Free out in the future. Orange is the Verizon of France (and Europe)...Free appears to be more like Vonage


whataname

@iauq.com

Yeah

Going to have to agree with them. Not everyone has to compete on being the cheapest possible - investing in the latest technology and keeping the best network are worth paying extra for a lot of the time.

Now, that is only applicable here if they actually are investing heavily - is France Telecom more like Verizon or AT&T when it comes to investing in the network?


Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

Must love the "innovation" line that every company

uses when they are in a tough spot and need to use some general, broad line that many customers eat up

Oh no!

chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

What ft does in the us?

They have local enterprise website for us and it looks like they offer metro Ethernet , managed network, VPN services. From their map it looks like they have a node in new York and try have their regional office as well. They don't have many jobs here opened though, most are in Europe and middle east.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to FFH5

Re: France Telecom

Could you explain to me exactly what you mean by coverage reputation, because I'm not really following that logic.

I've spoken to many "real world" folk, and most them care more about price and immediate coverage. Most of them could care less about the reputation.

IE AT&T, seeing as almost everyone I talk to hates the company but continues to stay, not based on reputation but usually becaus of ETFs and coverage.

I'm saying this because coverage reputation != coverage.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by The Limit:

I'm saying this because coverage reputation != coverage.

It isn't? Because perception is the reality in the world of marketing. And you may like to think otherwise, but marketing holds sway with the vast majority of wireless customers. True reality is vastly overrated.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3

Cheaper doesn't always mean better

Oh Karl... You amuse me with your stories about how every company that charges more than someone else for a service is evil or ignorant. And before one of the name-calling idiots on this site says it, I'm not a shill... I watch most of the big corporations stuff their CEO's pockets with tons of cash. I don't like it, but it is my choice whether or not to do business with them. If there is a cheaper alternative available, I might switch to that company... BUT, I won't do it at the cost of quality if quality is important to me. Cheaper doesn't always mean better.

I run a small WISP. My service is usually slightly more expensive than someone like CenturyLink, but I am also focused on consistent speeds and quality local technical support. I *COULD* offer cheaper service, but then I'd be outsourcing support to an Indian call center, using crappy equipment, and my quality of service would go down the drain. This would create the downward spiral of losing many customers to a higher-quality ISP, and either putting me out of business, or keeping my capacity to re-invest too low to keep up.

Like one of the posters above mentioned, Verizon may be one of the highest priced carriers in the US, but they also invest much better than any of the other carriers. I like T-mobile, and have chosen to stay with them for many years, but they have severely limited their capacity to invest in their network, and it is starting to show. On the flip side, they do provide a better value for me than Verizon so I will stick with them for now. But if things don't start getting better soon, you'll eventually fine me paying more to another carrier for better reliability/speeds/service/etc.

Bring on the name-calling, from the entitlists/whiners... I can handle it.

TheGuvnor9

join:2006-06-23
Beverly Hills, CA

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5

Re: France Telecom

Translation: Why would FT agree to erode their prices just because a few providers are willing to drop to the bone while probably sacrificing on quality. They will go on a holding pattern and assess in about 3 – 6 months. If the new providers fall on their faces then FT will hold current pricing. If they dont then they will be forced to drop prices.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
reply to FFH5
When did the discussion suddenly swing to marketing? I'm talking about raw coverage and price point, which is what the original article is addressing, unless I really did miss something.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to jcremin

Re: Cheaper doesn't always mean better

I really don't see where Karl is calling said company evil. I don't think he is implying it either. Sure, there will always be bias, but the article uses factual evidence, including quoted material.

I don't think you are a shill, maybe a little confused on the reporting of the story. I would pay more if the quality was better, no doubt about it, but like I was telling TK, it's not about "coverage reputation", but more about real value.

The definition of real value in this case, is a price that I can live with and excellent coverage. I realize that I may have to pay more, and even though I wish I could see where all the money was going, I will never be able to figure that out unless I had access to company documents, which I don't.

I understand where you are coming from, but Karl doesn't usually diss a company unless the company does something stupid and THEN tries to cover up said stupid action.

You have to remember what Karl reports on as well.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda

komal

join:2003-02-16

Karl never learns

Karl I wish you were more educated or at least, more intelligent.

Even the readers here who generally like to see telecoms fail or be insulted know that what you've written here is beyond dumb.

With rock bottom prices, how is anybody going to be able to invest in cell towers?

Where did the CEO say it wasn't happening? He said competing on price was a bad idea because the business model requires heavy capital investment. Innovation means new technologies, such as MMS/LTE etc. etc.

Perhaps you're just smart enough to know that posting incorrect but inflammatory stuff will get you more views, but from your history you seem very ignorant about anything business related or any kind of standards when writing these pieces.

I'd like to see whose towers Free is using, what kind of coverage they have and whether they can compete with Orange on speed.

If you think that telecoms can ONLY compete on price, you're just hopeless Karl. I hope you get some education.

TH47

join:2005-10-29

My opinion

Expect the very same crap here.

TH47

join:2005-10-29
(Please delete this thread, bad click)

TH47

join:2005-10-29
reply to komal

Re: Karl never learns

You may expect the very same crap here.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to ASTONMARTIN7

Re: Free is No Match for Orange

lol you shameless corporate shill. Free is like vonage? 1/3 of every French citizen subscribes to their landline service. if wireless is so investment intensive why are Verizon wireless margins at 40%?

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to jcremin

Re: Cheaper doesn't always mean better

Oh shutup. you have no idea how much garbage free went through to get their network set up. The incumbents used every dirty tactic in the book to at first try to prevent free from bidding for spectrum, then to sue them for completely bogus reasons. they even had president sarkozy on their side, but the prime minister stepped in to force sarkozy to let free to compete. the minister was influences by national popular opinion.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to komal

Re: Karl never learns

you are misinformed. they said the same thing about Fred's landline service- that triple play for a meager $40/month was impossibly cheap and would lead to bankruptcy. What you and a lot of other consumers don't understand is just how much the incumbents are gouging you with their inflated prices, and how cheap investment is. Xavier's policy is that he requires an average of $10 per customer. he can set up his wireless network as long as he earns 10 per month from each customers. the $2 per month plan is just to pull away people from competitors, people who are looking for an ultra cheap bargain.

Xavier's already explained he makes a profit even offering service at the $2 price point.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to The Limit

Re: Cheaper doesn't always mean better

Ok, saying he is calling them evil might be a bit of an exaggeration, but he definitely tries to paint them as being stupid.

said by Karl0:

The initial response by competitors is somewhat amusing with incumbent operator France Telecom apparently deciding that the right reaction to the shake up of France's stale wireless sector is to pretend it isn't happening:

Or being an abusive monopoly:

said by Karl0:

And by "innovation," they apparently mean not being innovative when it comes to service price tags, something made possible by the previous lack of real competition.

The quoted material (summarized) basically says that if they were to match the lower price, they would be reducing investment.

Now I agree, by failing to be competitive, they'll lose customers to those who want the cheapest option, but there is a healthy balance between "cheap crap" and "overpriced rip-off". Karl seems to diss anyone who refuses to sell any service at the "cheap crap" price.

My opinion is that I do think Karl is twisting the words around to make them look ignorant or evil. To me, good reporting has personality, but focuses on facts. Karl's writing is usually heavy on the bias, and light on the facts.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

Oh shutup.

Whine whine whine... Somehow I expected you'd be one of the people replying to my post because I didn't take Karl's word as the word of my god. Sigh.

Face it, I have just as much right to disagree with Karl as you do to agree with him. I'm just getting tired of people like you who are unable to have a debate and typically turn right to the name calling.

If Karl's post had been about how FT went out of their way to prevent competition, and was slamming them about that, then I'd have no problem with it. But it wasn't, and instead he made up his own "facts" about why they weren't lowering their price to match.

TheGuvnor9

join:2006-06-23
Beverly Hills, CA

1 recommendation

reply to The Limit

Re: France Telecom

I think you did miss the boat. Good reliability and coverage could equate to a good reputation. ETFs and shady billing aside. Also, you may have spoken to %0.02 of the entire subscriber base regarding your previous comment. That alone does not make you an expert. This is a value added thing. FT will sit and wait to determine how many subscribers jump the boat or don't jump the boat. My guess is that we will see the impact in a few months.

Did Apple drop prices when Android came on the scene? Nope. Once you agree to erode your prices (3%), you better work on more value added stuff or go make something else because you have just commoditized your product.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to sonicmerlin

Re: Free is No Match for Orange

said by sonicmerlin:

lol you shameless corporate shill.

If that weren't your reply to every damned post that doesn't actually bash the corporation being discussed, I might have some tiny bit of respect for you. You sound like a child when that is all you can respond with, rather than presenting some good debate. Much easier for you to just be a dick and call them a shill. Asshole.