- China Unicom says mobile subscribers rose to 212.75 mln in April
- China Telecom procures PON equipment in large volume
- ZTE confirms security hole in U.S. phone
- China Unicom offers cloud services to enterprise clients
- Chinese 3G users top 150 Million but most still on 2G
- NEC gains 28% growth in Asia Pacific optical network equipment market in Q1
- 4G LTE: 1 billion served by 2017
- Samsung gets 9 million preorders for new Galaxy phone
- No respite for HP, Dell in Windows 8: BMO
- Carr hopeful China will accept Huawei ban
- IBM Advances SmartCloud and Adds New Customers, Partners
- SaaS Products Take the Hassle Out of Calculating Salespeople's Pay
- Dell Unveils Boomi-Based Cloud-Integration Packs for SMBs
- NetSuite Expands Cloud Offerings With Commerce as a Service
- Facebook Could Become the Next Google: 10 Reasons Why
- Apple iCloud Refresh a Sure Thing at WWDC: Report
- Microsoft Should Buy Out Yahoo Pronto: 10 Reasons Why
- Google, Mozilla Complaints About Microsoft Browser Eyed by Senate Panel
- Mobility, Cloud, Virtualization Gain Traction Among Small Businesses: Symantec
- Microsoft Bing Needs Market Share Growth to Challenge Google
Clearwire has become a hard-strapped effort to build a new LTE-Advanced network on a limited budget while prospective mobile operator wholesale customers are engaged in a round of capital intensive upgrades and fresh deployments. The operators that make up the target market for the bulk of wholesale service Clearwire hopes to provide must place their own networks as a priority. This creates a scenario that is both more durable in the long run but also comes with its own set of conflicts, particularly in competing needs for capital and serving of end markets over the next three years or so.
This is nowhere more apparent in the complex relationship between Sprint and Clearwire: While Sprint owns the largest share of Clearwire and invested what many consider their most distinctive asset for long term competition, the 2.5-2.6GHz spectrum rolled into New Clearwire, they have competing needs for use of limited capital for network upgrades and new LTE deployments. In addition, while Sprint's planned deployments of LTE will allow Clearwire to fit in nicely with broader availability of multiple-mode 3G+4G mobile devices and network equipment, this also creates a 1-3 year period during which Clearwire's network is less needed. Similarly, T-Mobile, LEAP Wireless, AT&T, Verizon will not be at a lack of capacity as the new networks come up and remain relatively unoccupied by new or converted subscribers.
Clearwire's funding agreement with Sprint provides them with fixed payments through 2013 and a mandate to pursue LTE-Advanced TD-LTE deployments - about as soon as equipment and device supply is ready. That potentially fills a period of transitional demand gap and network conversions that jumps forward to market conditions where higher wholesale capacity will become more broadly required. However, several financial analysts have registered doubts about Clearwire and their largest supporter, Sprint's, ability to support downstream capex needs.
Into this scenario questions have been raised about the wherewithal for other partners to continue to support Clearwire. This has raised increasingly as defections of the cable companies, Comcast, BrightHouse, and Time Warner and sale of stock by Google sent doubts about Clearwire's financial backing and market position further into doubt.
|
TV Everywhere, the cable industry’s collective effort to get more video content to a growing online audience, came under new fire last week from various advocacy groups, including Free Press, the Media Access Project and the publisher of Consumer Reports. The groups charged collusion and anti-competitive conduct, saying that cable and satellite operators and telcos that are kicking the tires on TV Everywhere couldn’t help but agree not to compete in their respective territories if the model was going to work. They want regulators to ask cable companies some “tough questions.” Infix
|
Ty Ahmad-Taylor is the founder and CEO of FanFeedr, a real-time personalized sports feed. Previously, he was SVP of Strategy and Product Development at Viacom (NYSE: VIA) and, before that, Comcast. I worked at two large cable television networks, and both believed—and continue to believe—that they are in the television business. That seems logical enough – problem is, it isn’t true. And it’s a problem throughout the media industry. Most firms believe that they are in the business of distributing content through discrete channels, and that mischaracterization often leads to poor strategy and execution. (Read on for some of the latest examples.) If you make television shows, films or music, your business is actually the audience business. The same goes for books, magazines and newspapers. Michael J . Wolf, former President of MTV Networks, put it this way when I spoke with him. “Television companies are in the programming business and the brand business. When you look at a network like Syfy, or Cartoon Network, or Nickelodeon, they mean something.”
|