There are only 3 mobile licenses in France. They are trying to figure out how to auction out the 4th one.
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/27711.php
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/27711.php
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
20% of iPhones in France Unlocked, and Other Stats
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Any country with a mobile penetration rate of over 100% will have the same kinds of problems as UK.
There are going to be coverage problems everywhere on earth. You might not like the carrier with the best coverage in your own city (say you want GSM variety of phones, but a CDMA carrier have better coverage in the city) --- but you have choices, which leads to lower prices. Remember that there was a time when US had 6 national carriers (it went down to 4 with mergers).
Right on, thanks for the link...although the author has no idea how the French government works, the facts about the nature of the 3G licenses seem to check out.
So the question of increasing competition and thus potentially bringing better prices to the consumer seems to revolve around how much a fourth company will have to pay for the license and equipment and not simply whether or not there will be a fourth company, right? If Iliad or whomever is forced to pay the same fees as the others, there's no reason to think they will bring a better offer to the table than the existing companies, whose offers are virtually identical in terms of value.
No, that's not true.
The UK 3G auction got the highest license fees in the world (£22.5 billion)--- yet they have better tariffs than quite a few countries in Europe. The French government practically gave away some of the 3G licenses for pennies --- yet they have some of the highest tariffs in Europe.
According to this source and others, the big 3 here paid 4.5 billion Euros each for their 3G licenses:
http://mobilesociety.typepad.com/mobile_life/2006/10/do_cheap_3g_lic.html
Even for giant companies that is considerably more than 'pennies.' And, as the article points out, the relationship between license cost and deployment of technology is anything but clear.
The following article demonstrates a much better awareness of the complexities of pricing and market development in Europe than other articles I've read in English, even if it's a bit dated:
http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/husson/archives/2006/12/a_4th_3g_player.html
As I pointed out above, there are a lot of reasons why some things cost more in France, and other reasons why other things cost more in other countries. You keep trying to simplify it to one or two elements in a very complicated equation. One could ask this question of any country, depending on the product: Why are fresh fruit and vegetables so expensive in England and dirt cheap in the rest of Europe, regardless of production capacity? Why is gasoline so expensive (when adjusted for income) throughout eastern Europe, even in cases where it comes from the ground beneath their feet? Why is brand clothing so much cheaper in the US than in Europe, while insurance, dry goods and alcohol are so much cheaper here? And cigarettes...why can a guy smoke a pack a day in Japan with the some money that buys a pack a week in France and a 2 packs a month in the UK? There are complicated social, economic and geopolitical reasons for all of these things, and cell phone rates are no different.
in germany they paid 98 billion D-Mark .. or 50 billion euro alltogether which equals 8,4 billions for each licensee (during the bidding some even went as far up as 30 billion for a bigger frequency block but then thought that they might be just as happy with less
)nearly equal to the british result if you convert to "per capita" ... in total sum it was more
That was the original price that the French government decided, but lack of interests from the carriers pushed the price down to €619 million (plus a percentage of 3G service revenue).
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/10/17/umts_ed3_.php
But since 3G service like video calling has been a complete dud, the French carriers aren't paying much beyond the original €619 million price tag.
PS: If you read the first comment of the blog post you cited, he was immediately corrected on his errors about French licensing fees. And all the other comments that followed basically stated how uncompetitive the French mobile service market is.
As France's competition authority has ruled --- there was price collusion between the French carriers. 3 national carriers = uncompetitve market, which may lead to price collusion.
That's what price collusion is --- carriers agreed illegally to not compete in price. Orange and Apple agree to set a national price for the iphone --- that's not price collusion because they aren't competitors, they are business partners.
What we have here is the French government had all its priorities reversed. Setting up all these French simlocking laws that are totally useless (Apple should hire Dr. Evil from Austin Powers to do a commercial to announce the price of the unlocked iphone is 1 million dollars, then evil laughs). Meanwhile, Paris is burning because all the carriers are colluding in price.
True enough: although 619 million EUR is still not 'pennies', you are right.
Funny, I read the same comments and thought they were rather supportive of my claim that it's difficult to compare markets for reasons that have nothing to do with simlocking laws and licensing fees. What's more, I'm not 'defending' the French market; I'm merely pointing out that the reasons for why things here are priced the way they are is often more complicated than it might look from an outside perspective.
Tell me more...there are several French entities that might be described in English as a 'competition authority.' Which one? What ruling and when? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you have a terrible habit of posting things, being called on them and then moving on like it didn't happen.
First, if the carriers were, as you claim, convicted of colluding in price, than they clearly aren't doing it anymore so why the present tense? Second, in what way does this represent a priorities problem, and third, why can't you admit that the situation is more complicated than there being a few laws you don't like causing cell phones to cost too much in a particular country? When it comes down to it, that's really my only point, and it's not too big of a claim.
You should tell me more, not the other way around. It's the first sentence from YOUR link ---- court of appeal approved the fines imposed by the adminstrative body in charge of competition.
How would you know that the carriers don't continue this practice right now? Companies get fined and then repeat what they are doing. That's how the real world works. It's a cost of business.
It's not really complicated at all. When you have a country with 3 national carriers (all of them owned by French companies) and zero foreign competitors entering the French mobile telecom market --- that's how the price is so high.
Since you refuse to admit that this sentence is in the article, I'll post it:
"French prices should thus be higher than the Europe average (which is the case, but to be honest it is extremely complex to establish depending on the items you take into account) and market shares should have remained largely unchanged."
That's all I'm saying.
I don't think this little argument is going anywhere, so to sum up: You think French cell phone rates are higher than other European countries solely and simply because of dimwitted simlocking laws and price collusion, while I say it's more complicated than that for the many reasons I've already posted. I don't have anything to add to that.
Well, as the late Charles de Gaulle once said:
"Donnez-moi la liberté. Donnez-moi iPhone déverrouillé!"
"Donnez-moi la liberté. Donnez-moi iPhone déverrouillé!"
Of course, there are going to be many, many factors that goes into competitiveness of a certain market. But what is the largest issue out of the 10 million different issues --- it is the lack of competitions (especially the lack of foreign competition) within France.
What I have been saying is about PRIORITIES --- you can help the consumers a lot more by introducing more competitions, by giving out the 4th (and maybe a 5th) mobile license --- preferrably to a foreign company.
Simlocking laws don't help much in terms of "consumer rights" if the carriers are doing price colluding. Low licensing fee don't help much in terms of "consumer rights" either because France's licensing fee is about 90% cheaper than UK's.
The world is full of complexities --- but the most effective solution to "consumer rights" is to introduce additional competition. All the other solutions are secondary.
This may be true - if you think that liberalism is the best thing for consumers. I'll simply accept this premise, such a debate being a tad bit out of this forum's scope.
Now, when introducing additional competition is not feasible, or at least when a government just can't make it happen by itself, regulation is a better alternative than just letting the situation rot. I prefer picking the second best solution to not doing anything at all.
Good in theory, but rarely happens like you intended in real life.
If introducing additional competition is possible (like France with only 3 carriers and all 3 carriers are owned by big French conglomerates), but the government is unwilling to introduce additional competition --- then the war is already lost. (I am a Canadian --- Canada has only 3 national carriers and Canada doesn't allow foreign ownership of Canadian telecom companies --- so we are pretty much screwed like the French.)
The war is lost because the big conglomerates with their lobbying have already "bought" the politicians --- and all the other secondary solutions are going to be "all fluff and no substance".
All the European simlocking laws look good on paper, but they will do almost next to nothing to consumer rights. Apple can't do that with the iphone in the UK --- no, they can. Apple can't do that with the iphone in Germany --- no, they can. Apple can't do that with the iphone in France --- no, they can.
Orange launched the iPhone in France last week and has sold 30,000 iPhones since that time. Due to French law, Orange is required to allow the phone to be unlocked 6 months after its purchase. In the meanwhile, however, they are allowing customers to pay an additional 100 euro to unlock their iPhone, no matter what plan they choose.
To recap, you can purchase the iPhone in France a number of ways:
399 euro = iPhone + 2 year "iPhone" Orange contract
549 euro = iPhone + any Orange contract
649 euro = iPhone with no contract
And for the first six months, a 100 euro add-on allows you to unlock your iPhone. Unlocking the iPhone allows it to accept SIM cards from any other network, though you would still be bound by the contractual obligations listed above. The early stats from Orange provides interesting information about customer interests.
Apparently, 20% of early iPhone purchasers have opted for this unlocked option. Meanwhile 1500 (~5%) paid for the 649 euro contract-less version. It's unclear how many of those paid for the official unlock, or opted for one of the many free hacks available. Finally, 48% of customers buying iPhones were new to the Orange network.
Article Link
C'mon, someone import these unlocked iPhones to the US...
The main French consumer rights association (UFC-Que Choisir) agrees with you on that point, as pointed out in this article (French).
Basically, they're asking that the rules to attribute the 4th 3G licence be reviewed. One company, Free, had initially applied for that licence, but it was decided they couldn't qualify. New rules would probably allow them to enter the market and bring fresh blood.
This association describes the French market as "utterly locked".