Wal-Mart is often cast as a villain by some labor unions, local politicians and small retailers, but for the average consumer Wal-Mart has been a savior: A relentless price-cutting machine that instantly changes the dynamics of every market it touches. Indeed, when Wal-Mart decides to jump into a sector by offering a new good or service in its stores, something akin to “the Southwest effect” on steroids kicks in: That market segment is often transformed overnight in that the good or service Wal-Mart starts delivering is essentially instantly commoditized. For the seller of that good or service, this is both a blessing and a curse: They gain the massive market reach that goes along with being in Wal-Mart’s 8,000 retail stores. On the other hand, they instantly surrender any semblance of pricing power they once had.  And this typically also puts downward pressure on prices not just for the particular good carried in the Wal-Mart stores, but for that entire market segment more generally. [This exact scenario is currently playing out in the book marketplace as Wal-Mart has gone to war with Amazon in cost-cutting bonanza.]

The reason I bring all this up is because, as most of you probably already heard, Wal-Mart jumped into the prepaid cell phone business this week with the launch of Straight Talk:

a new solution in no-contract cellular, exclusively at more than 3,200 Walmart stores nationwide starting October 18, 2009. Straight Talk will bring to the market a new low price for no-contract wireless service with two prepaid plans now available to customers nationwide at $30 and $45 a month. Straight Talk will only be available in Walmart stores and online at www.Walmart.com and www.StraightTalk.com. The average U.S. adult spends $78 on his or her cell phone bill to receive 1000 minutes a month. By switching to the $30 Straight Talk plan, for example, the average 1,000 minutes-per-month consumer could save more than $500 per year and still be on a reliable nationwide network.

I don’t want to overplay the significance of this development, but I really do believe that Wal-Mart’s presence in this field is significant, at least for entry-level mobile phones. While it would be easy for those of us who use more advanced smartphones to shrug off the Wal-Mart announcement, it would be a mistake for reasons made clear by David Worthington over at Technologizer:

As a technophile, it’s tempting for me to point out the short comings of those devices. There are only a few stock applications available, and unlimited data on a flip phone does not translate to the same experience that I have surfing the Web on my iPhone. But that does not matter, because the people who would buy these phones wouldn’t care. … It’s.. an economical choice for families with shoestring budgets. Leading wireless companies provide family plans, but they aren’t cheap, and usually require a commitment. … A pre-paid plan doesn’t require families to purchase much more than what they want to pay for. Whether Wal-Mart becomes a viable wireless company or not is up to the market, but its track record is pretty solid. Wal-Mart rapidly became the largest grocery store in the United States after all, and it has more locations than other pre-paid wireless companies. I’m guessing it’ll do well.

You better believe it. Have you seen the stacks of prepaid calling cards that adorn the shelves in every Wal-Mart checkout line?  Do you think they just have those there for decoration?  That’s a huge business, folks. While some of us haven’t touched a prepaid calling card since our college days decades ago, millions of people buy and use such cards every day.  As Worthington notes, prepaid plans mean you don’t have to pay for more than you’ll think you need and for many folks that’s about all they want to hear.  Esoteric inside-the-Beltway debates about tethering, Net neutrality, app stores, etc., are meaningless to most people.  They just want a phone that works at the right price — namely, cheap!

Finally, this development certainly calls into question the asinine theories being bandied about in Washington these days about the mobile marketplace lacking competition and innovation, something recent studies have shown to be complete bunk.  I’m not saying that Wal-Mart’s entry into this sector is going to turn cell phones into the equivalent of the toothpick or napkin market; there will always be room for differentiated phones and plans, especially at the higher end of the market. But as the retailing giant expands its reach in this sector, it’s bound to have an impact — especially for the entry-level devices and plans that low-income consumers might want.  Somehow I doubt this will let the regulation-happy gang over at our current FCC sleep any easier at night, but it should.

In a week in which neutrality regulation is making a lot of news, I hope that Robert Hahn and Hal Singer’s terrific new study, “Why the iPhone Won’t Last Forever and What the Government Should Do to Promote its Successor” gets some attention. It provides a wonderful overview of how dynamically competitive the mobile marketplace has been over the past two decades and why critics are wrong to get worked up about the short-term “dominance” of Apple’s iPhone. Here’s the abstract of their paper:

Because of the overwhelming, positive response to the iPhone as compared to other smart phones, exclusive agreements between handset makers and wireless carriers have come under increasing scrutiny by regulators and lawmakers. In this paper, we document the myriad revolutions that have occurred in the mobile handset market over the past twenty years. Although casual observers have often claimed that a particular innovation was here to stay, they commonly are proven wrong by unforeseen developments in this fast-changing marketplace. We argue that exclusive agreements can play an important role in helping to ensure that another must-have device will soon come along that will supplant the iPhone, and generate large benefits for consumers. These agreements, which encourage risk taking, increase choice, and frequently lower prices, should be applauded by the government. In contrast, government regulation that would require forced sharing of a successful break-through technology is likely to stifle innovation and hurt consumer welfare.

“New technologies often seemingly emerge from nowhere, but also frequently lose their luster quickly,” Hahn and Singer go on to argue. As evidence they cite the recent examples of Second Life and MySpace, which were hyped as potentially become dominant providers in their respective areas just a few years ago, but now are subjected to intense competition. “[T]he the mobile handset market is subject to these same disruptive forces,” they argue:

an iconic handset emerges, is quickly crowned the “winner,” and soon thereafter is replaced by another technology that was not even conceived of at the time the “winner” was launched. Many iPhone-inspired smartphones, including the Blackberry Storm and the HTC G1, could unseat the iPhone in the smartphone segment. We argue that heavy-handed regulation of such dynamic markets is likely to reduce welfare on net. The cost of erring through regulatory intervention—for example, by restricting voluntary private agreements that promote risk taking—can be significant. Delaying the benefits associated with innovation in mobile handsets could cost consumers dearly. In sum, exclusive contracts between handset makers and wireless carriers benefit consumers by encouraging innovation by both handset makers and wireless service providers that are vying for market share, and by enabling some handset makers to remain viable. These benefits take the form of greater variety of choices in handsets, greatly enhanced capabilities, and a more affordable range of device options. Banning exclusive contracts could have the unintended consequence of reducing innovation, reducing options, raising prices, and potentially establishing market dominance for an incumbent handset maker.

The End of Innovation?

In their excellent history of handset innovation over the past two decades, Hahn and Singer point out that there were many other “iconic” phones that some felt represented the end of the road in terms of innovation. I just love this quote they unearthed from a 1989 Fortune article about how the release of Motorola’s MicroTAC flip phone represented the apparent pinnacle of handset innovation: “Portable phones won’t get a lot smaller than this one. After all, they have to reach from your ear to your mouth.”

This highlights the myopia that sometimes accompanies technological forecasting and public policymaking.  We sometimes just can’t think “outside the box” and comprehend the ways in which technological devices or services might come along and leapfrog today’s market leaders. It gets back to the point I made in my recent book review of Gary Reback’s over-the-top ode to antitrust regulation, Free the Market:  Those who view markets through the lens of the a static competition, fixed-pie mentality always seem to live in fear of short term “market power” while those of us who believe in dynamic competition see markets in a constant state of flux and expect that sub-optimal market developments or configurations are exactly the spark that incentivizes new form of market entry, innovation, price competition, and so on.  And the real problem with that static competition mentality is that it often leads to knee-jerk regulatory responses.  Here’s how I put it in my recent debate with Larry Lessig:

What concerns me about the way Prof. Lessig approaches these issues in Code and in his subsequent work is that he is far too quick to declare the debate over by labeling short-term.. hiccups as sky-is-falling market failures. The end result of such myopic techno-pessimism is the inevitable call for governments to intervene and “do something” to correct supposed [market] failures.

In other words, have a little faith and some patience.  Apple’s iPhone is today’s hottest handset, but it’s hardly the end of innovation in this marketplace.  And we certainly don’t need handset regulation or “device neutrality” as a solution to this non-problem.  Read Hahn and Singer’s dynamite new paper for a better understanding of why that’s the case.

Yesterday up on Capitol Hill, I hosted a very interesting discussion about “Next-Generation Parental Controls & Child Safety Efforts.”  I thought I’d provide a quick recap here for those who couldn’t attend. [Note: audio of the event will be up shortly at the link above and transcript is in the works.] The event featured Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Corporation’s Entertainment & Devices Division; Dane Snowden, Vice President of External & State Affairs of CTIA – The Wireless Association; and Stephen Balkam, Chief Executive Officer of Family Online Safety Institute.

Steve Crown of Microsoft kicked the show off with a terrific overview of some the current and next-generation parental control tools and awareness efforts that Microsoft is deploying to help empower parents and keep kids safer both online and in gaming environments. Crown outlined Microsoft’s 5-prong strategy regarding how they have approached these issues on the gaming front, and I think it represents an excellent model of how sensible industry self-regulation and “best practices” can go a long way toward addressing concerns that many parents and policymakers have. The five strategies Crown outlined were: (1) Respect both the freedom of game creators and freedom of choice for game consumers; (2) empower parents with ratings, tools, and information; (3) use independent ratings (like the ESRB) to label content; (4) require all games be rated before they can be used on a platform so that parents can implement blocking controls; and (5) respect regional laws and rating systems in different parts of the globe.

In my book on Parental Controls & Online Child Safety: A Survey of Tools & Methods, I’ve documented many of the empowerment tools that Microsoft has deployed in recent years to make this empowerment vision a reality. One of the most important things MS does on its XBox 360 console is to provide an immediate “out-of-the-box” prompt for parents to set up parental controls and establish other limitations on online chat, spending, or Internet access. Microsoft announced another cool new feature in November 2007, the “Family Timer.” It lets parents limit how and when children play games on the console. This is similar to the time management tools Microsoft offers in its Vista operating system for PCs.  Incidentally, my wife has asked me to start using the Family Timer on our XBox — not for our kids, but for me!  This particular 40-year-old man is still a big kid at heart.

Crown also stressed the importance of “deep cooperation and coordination” when it comes to making parental empowerment a reality.  For example, when announcing the Family Timer, Microsoft also launched a new awareness campaign in conjunction with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) referred to as the “Is Your Family Set?” campaign At the same time, Microsoft and the PTA also rolled out a new “P.A.C.T.” agreement form that parents and their children could sign to reach an agreement on acceptable video game usage in the home.

To bring all these efforts together and give parents a sort of “one-stop shop” for all these gaming tools and information, in early 2009, Microsoft launched a new portal, “Get Game Smart.com.”  The GetGameSmart site provides instructions and video tutorials about how to set up parental controls and family settings, tips and advice from child safety experts, a frequent newsletter, and much more.

Again, “cooperation and coordination” was central to the Get Game Smart effort, with over 15 partners being involved. Moreover, Crown pointed out, cooperation and coordination has also been essential to the efforts of Microsoft and others in the gaming industry when it comes to “point of sale” awareness-building about game ratings.  Obviously, game developers and console makers can’t have staff on hand at every store where games or consoles might be sold. Consequently, it often falls to sales clerks and others in retail stores to convey ratings info.  Luckily, because of the partnerships that have been struck between various stakeholders all along the food chain, public awareness and use of ratings has grown rapidly. Microsoft, the ESRB, and others in the gaming industry have worked with retailers like Best Buy, WalMart, and many online vendors to make sure relevant ratings information is used at the point of sale to inform parents or limit underage access to games rated for more mature audiences.

The chart below illustrates the dramatic increase in ratings use and awareness since 1999 — from 49% awareness in 1999 to 86% by 2008.  That’s an incredible success story in terms of how industry self-regulation and best practices can go all long way toward addressing the concerns of parents and policymakers without denying the public access to a broad range of games for all ages.

Also on hand at our Hill event yesterday was Dane Snowden of the CTIA – The Wireless Association. Snowden also stressed the importance of partnerships and coordination among many diverse players to build awareness about parental controls and online safety in the mobile context. Snowden pointed out that there are well over 600 different mobile communications devices on the market today, which makes devising controls a daunting task. But both the wireless industry and independent vendors are responding with a wave of new integrated tools and add-on services that can help parents control handset use and online interactions.

For example, beginning in November 2005, CTIA unveiled new “Wireless Carrier Content Guidelines” that industry members would follow “to proactively provide tools and controls to manage wireless content offered by the carriers or available via Internet-enabled wireless devices.  According to an April 2009 filing by CTIA to the FCC, the guidelines work as follows:

Under these guidelines, participating carriers agree to develop content classification standards and educate consumers about the meaning of the chosen categories and ratings. The Notice describes the bifurcation in these content classification guidelines between “Carrier Content” and content available from other sources. The guidelines for Carrier Content cover materials that are available through a carrier’s managed content portal as well as third-party materials for which customers may be billed directly by their wireless carrier. These materials are divided into “Generally Accessible Carrier Content,” which is available to all consumers, and “Restricted Carrier Content,” which is not available to wireless users under 18 years of age without specific parental authorization.

Many major wireless carriers have already announced their plans or policies regarding such content or developed family tools to help parents protect their children. Market leaders AT&T (“SmartLimits” and “Media Net”),Verizon Wireless (“Family Locator”), T-Mobile (“Web Guard”), and Sprint (“Net Safety“) already have excellent parental control services and websites up and running.

Dane Snowden also noted that a vibrant marketplace of independent parental control tools is now thriving on many platforms, including Apple iTunes apps and Windows Mobile apps. Thus, just as was the case in the traditional PC world, we can expect to see parental control tools integrated within networks and devices and then also on top of networks and devices. That’s the best of both worlds since it gives parents a lot of flexibility and options.

Finally, my old friend Stephen Balkam of Family Online Safety Institute placed all these developments in a broader historical context. He believes we are finally seeing a shift from a “fear-based approach” to online safety toward a “fact-based approach.” Balkam cited the early fears and techno-panics that motivated misguided and ultimately unconstitutional laws such as the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. He also pointed out just how irrelevant such laws would have been even if they had remained on the books in light of the recent rise of problems like cyberbullying and “sexting.”

To address such concerns, Balkam stressed the importance of media literacy and digital citizenship and the need for a “Web 3.0” approach along the lines of what Anne Collier and Larry Magid have outlined in their work on the issue. Balkam also put in a plug for the “School and Family Education about the Internet (SAFE Internet) Act” (S. 1047), which was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and in the House by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). The measure proposes an Internet safety education grant program that would be administered by the Department of Justice.  Balkam argued, and I agree, that such education and counseling-based approaches represent the better approach to a “criminalization” solution.

In closing, I think the 3 key take-aways from yesterday’s discussion were:

1. Cooperation and coordination are essential when devising parental control solutions and trying to build awareness of them.
2. Additional parental empowerment tools are great, but focusing on striking the right balance is crucial.  Parental empowerment tools must be both sophisticated and simple to use at the same time.
3. Education is absolutely essential in every child safety context. Whether it’s potentially objectionable content or unwanted forms of communications, we must talk to our kids and better prepare them for life in the Digital Age.  The best “parental control” is parental interaction and ongoing conversation with our kids.

Last summer, my PFF colleague Barbara Esbin and I explained that, while many consumers dislike not being able to get popular smartphones like the iPhone on the wireless network of their choice, such exclusive deals actually benefit consumers. Barbara summarizes her testimony (PDF) as follows:

the dynamic created by the exclusive arrangement between Apple and AT&T that produced the iPhone allowed the two companies to bridge the gap between the technologies of today and the disruptive innovations of tomorrow. Moreover, it is undeniable that the breakthrough success of the iPhone has spurred a wave of competitors. If every wireless carrier had been able to sell the iPhone when it was initially released, I noted, it seems unlikely there would have been as much carrier support for developing competing products like the Google G1, RIM Blackberry Storm, Samsung Instinct or Palm Pre.

In a new PFF essay, my colleague Barbara Esbin and I address a recent petition filed by the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) asking the FCC to prohibit exclusive arrangements between wireless handset producers and carriers. The RCA petition claims that large wireless companies have an unfair market advantage by giving their customers exclusive access to certain advanced smart phones, such as the Apple/AT&T iPhone—and that this anticompetitive practice is harmful to rural consumers served by RCA members.

In the piece, we debunk RCA’s arguments premised on a supposed lack of competition in wireless markets. RCA will likely now redouble these arguments by pointing to Verizon’s planned acquisition of Alltel (by far the smallest of the “Big 5” carriers), which was announced the day our piece was published. But even with four large carriers instead of five, the wireless market remains vibrantly competitive—especially as compared to 1992, when the FCC decided that even the two-carrier market was “extremely competitive,” and rejecting arguments that it ban exclusive handset arrangements.

In its last statistical report on competition in the mobile wireless marketplace, the FCC noted, “99.8 percent of the total U.S. population may obtain service from one or more CMRS providers; more than 95 percent live in areas with at least three CMRS providers competition to offer service; more than half the population lives in areas with at least five competing providers; and that 99.3 percent of consumers living in rural areas (approximately 60.6 million people) have a choice of one or more mobile carriers.” The elimination of the largest regional carrier (with fewer than a fifth as many customers as Verizon) should not appreciably reduce this wealth of choices available to consumers.

We also explain the virtues—or at least, the practical necessity—of exclusivity: such arrangements ultimately benefit all consumers by allowing handset manufacturers (i) to fund expensive development efforts for new mobile products through revenue-sharing and (ii) to develop truly innovative devices by ensuring that new services function properly on the provider’s network. We note that small carriers have been able to negotiate exclusive handset deals in the past by pooling their buying power and we suggest that RCA’s members should attempt to do the same today, rather than asking the FCC to ban exclusive arrangements. Also noteworthy is Apple’s movement away from exclusives elsewhere.

Ultimately, what enables technological innovations such as the iPhone are business model innovations such as Apple’s revolutionary partnership with AT&T. The ongoing evolution of that relationship demonstrates the dynamism of the wireless marketplace: Apple announced yesterday that it had extended its exclusive arrangement with AT&T, with AT&T now paying Apple more up front for the 3G HSDPA phones instead of sharing data plan revenue as with the EDGE iPhone. A $10/month increase in data plan rates will allow AT&T to reduce the price of new iPhones by $100, increasing AT&T’s subsidy to consumers.

Cynics will likely point out that an extra $10/month represents an effective increase of $140 for the total cost of AT&T’s minimum two-year contract (including the $100 price reduction but ignoring the time value of money). But then, someone has to pay for the cost of developing the 3G and upgrading AT&T’s 2.5G EDGE network to the higher-speed 3G HSDPA network. Yet despite the importance of experimentation with pricing and business models, RCA would have the government ban certain business models in favor of others. As we conclude: “the FCC should let the competitive forces of the wireless and handset markets continue to produce devices like the iPhone unhindered by intrusive and unnecessary government intervention.”