The deal would make HP into the broadest-based technology company in the market, broader than Apple or IBM, and it would also create what could be a real powerhouse play in consumer electronics evolution. At a stroke, it puts Apple, Google, Microsoft, and even RIM on the defensive. If (as we deem likely) HP uses this to create a much broader ecosystem, it threatens IBM and Cisco.
By increasing the competitive pressure in the mobile market, HP creates a new risk for Ericsson and Nokia. We think a very broad mission for the deal is likely, given HP’s clear intention to create cross-product symbiosis within its lines. There will most surely be major counter-moves now that this deal is out. One reason it will cause chaos is that there are so many directions and implications depending on just what HP does next. We’ll have to wait and see but not much detail is currently offered on their plans.]]>
Search engines like Google form the window on the Web, and their ranking algorithms and the way they can be gamed or bought would have enormous impact on what is found. One could argue that Google has already discriminated based on applications, traffic type, etc.
The fact that ISPs have commented on this relative to the net neutrality NPRM puts the FCC on notice that an industry that’s freed from ISP dominance is likely to be dominated instead by somebody like Google, for whom there is no applicable regulatory framework.]]>
The cable industry has a significant asset in CATV because the plant can be exploited at much higher potential speed than the older copper loop used in DSL. We hear that this new project is a long way from fruition and that there are significant disagreements among key technology gurus in the space on just what should be done.
The big question is whether channelized programming will go away in favor of on-demand programming. If it doesn’t, then the slotted format may be the best after all. Meanwhile, this will put more pressure on DSL and telecoms.]]>
The FCC has, in truth, no other options that it could hope to undertake on its own authority. Congress would have to redraw the regulatory map to create a more direct path to net neutrality, but in truth we believe the reclassification is an easier approach.
There are ample reasons for the move, more than would be needed to satisfy the law. So the real question is whether the FCC is willing to take some industry heat in favor of net neutrality, or would prefer to let the issue go and accept industry competition as the lever against any non-neutral practices.]]>
The question here is whether CenturyTel, which is at least more like a real telecom company than Qwest was in the bubble era, can make something of a symbiosis here. Qwest’s profit margin is much lower than CenturyTel’s margins, and the territory isn’t a super prospect for near-term exploitation of opportunity. Still, the move creates a real third competitor in the US telco world, which probably wasn’t possible any other way.
The story is that the growth in the future will come from business services, but we think that unless it plans to get into cloud computing services or something at a higher layer, Level 3’s experience shows that there’s not much room for enterprise growth.]]>
There has been considerable speculation that AT&T would lose exclusivity for the iPhone, but whether or not it does, the giant mobile carrier appears to be losing the initiative. Being a conduit for consumer electronics is hardly a glamorous mission.
UBS is also reporting that AT&T’s capex plans are somewhat under expectation, which may indicate the company isn’t going to be as aggressive in network modernization under the increasingly constrained financial situation.
The fact that there are rumors Apple is going into the hosting business for over-the-top (OTT) applications associated with the iPhone and iPad (which we think is a given, not a rumor) isn’t going to help AT&T, who may see that cutting off its own service-layer opportunities in monetizing its iPhone success]]>
This will be a very interesting case to watch because it may be a test over just how much public angst is caused by another “violation of net neutrality,” even though it’s not clear there’s any official neutrality policy to violate. It may be that the RCN case will determine how far the FCC and Congress will go to create an enforceable policy.]]>
While obviously O2 isn’t going to let customers pay what they want, the provider is apparently trying to create offerings that meet customer goals. This demands more flexibility at the service and operations layer.
It may even be the kind of development that’s driving Alcatel-Lucent to consider hosting things like Mobilefriends. There’s a lot of momentum around new mobile models in Europe, even given that smartphones there lag the U.S., and that may suggest broader international adoption of new approaches later this year.]]>
The new relationship will test a couple of theories: One that broadband consolidation can produce enough economy of scale to make ISP services profitable; and the other that an ISP can be successful as a retail provider who uses wholesale infrastructure to actually deliver service.
Australia and the US are both dabbling with changes in the regulatory framework of broadband, and this new deal may be the best test of whether changes can succeed.]]>
There’s no question that if live programming or first-run episode viewing on mobile devices gets popular, it’s a lot more efficient to send the material to devices using traditional RF technology. There’s also been some Congressional interest in creating emergency-compatible handsets for disaster communication, and this would also rely on RF delivery.
The question is whether there’s going to be much device support (especially for phones) for the notion. Even if handset players like the idea, it might take government intervention to get operators to buy in. Still, we’re hearing some Tier One carriers are very interested because it would help reduce mobile video traffic they don’t expect to be able to charge for anyway.]]>