Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Sell Spectrum to Verizon

SpectrumCo, LLC, a joint venture between Comcast Corporation, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks, is selling Verizon Wireless its 122 Advanced Wireless Services spectrum licenses covering 259 million POPs for $3.6 billion. What might be noteworthy is the strategic change of direction. The cable companies purchased the AWS spectrum at least in part as a potential foundation for wireless service.

The sale, and the agreement by the owners to resell Verizon Wireless services instead, suggests the cable operators once again have decided that they could not create independent wireless operations.

Moreover, given the business relationship cable companies have had with Sprint since at least 1994, the move also suggests that the cable operators are breaking with the idea of Sprint as a strategic partner. Since cable companies have been among the potential buyers of Sprint Nextel, the latest moves would seem to indicate no interest in that area.

Cable TV operators have been spending money to get into the wireless business for decades, with little success. In 1994 Sprint, Tele-Communications, Comcast and Cox Cable formed a joint venture to build a nationwide network to provide wireless service.

However in 1998, Sprint assumed control of the business and bought the cable companies' interest in the company.

In 2005 Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and Advance/Newhouse formed a joint venture with Sprint Nextel to provide a quad-play cable TV, high-speed data, landline and wireless service to their customers. But the quad-play idea never panned out and Pivot never grew beyond the initial 33 markets Sprint launched in November 2007.

Sprint said that Pivot was being hindered by provisioning issues. Time Warner later said that demand for Pivot services was "tepid." Pivot users eventually were given the option of switching to Sprint's regular service.

In 2008, Sprint and Clearwire announced that they would combine their WiMAX businesses and create a new company that would include a $3.2 billion investment from Intel, Google, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks and Trilogy Equity Partners.  Cable wireless history

Recently, Cox Communications decided to shutter its own wireless business as well.

Comcast owns 63.6 percent of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $2.3 billion from the sale. Time Warner Cable owns 31.2 percent of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $1.1 billion. Bright House Networks owns 5.3 percent of SpectrumCo and will receive approximately $189 million. Comcast, Time Warner Cable sell spectrum to Verizon

Time Warner Cable Tells Subs How to Cut Cord

Though it is Cablevision Systems Corp. that now is feuding with Fox over the cost of programming, the temporary content blackout is not unprecedented. Time Warner Cable has had its own programming cost disputes, and produced this video to show its customers how to connect their PCs to their TVs to watch content online, during the blackout.

Cablevision is doing the same at the moment. It's ironic, though.

Clearwire Emerging as a Wholesaler

Perhaps Clearwire did not initially think its business model would be anchored by wholesale wireless, but that seems to be shaping up as key to its future. Of the 283,000 net new subscribers added in the first quarter of 2010, 111,000 of them, or 39 percent, were gained by wholesale partners.

Most of the other major national wireless providers also have some wholesale operations, but none likely approach Clearwire's percentage. Clearwire’s network is behind Sprint’s 4G services as well as Comcast and Time Warner Cable wireless services. Then there is T-Mobile USA, which seems to need wholesale 4G capacity as well.

It might not be unreasonable to speculate that one reason Clearwire is preparing for a transition to Long Term Evolution, instead of sticking with its WiMAX air interface, is that T-Mobile USA might well require LTE capability in order to sign up.

"There was an agreement before that was really a commercial deal between Intel and Clearwire that would restrict us from using anything other than WiMAX up to, I think it’s February of 2012," said Bill Morrow, Clearwire CEO. "That deal is no longer in effect."

Now, either Intel or Clearwire can give 30 days notice and the deal is over. "So it does give us the flexibility that if we wanted to do a commercial launch of LTE or some other technology, that Intel would not be holding us back," said Morrow.

With less than a million total subscribers, it is too early to say how the retail versus wholesale customer mix holds up over time. Should Clearwire pick up T-Mobile USA as a wholesale partner, and as Comcast and Time Warner Cable gear up their wireless operations, it is not hard to envision wholesale growing to be a majority of customers.

About 1/2 of 1 Percent of Time Warner Cable Customers Buy 50 Mbps Service

It's likely fair to keep in mind, as ISPs, regulators and policy advocates ponder future service offerings at speeds of 100 Mbps, or even higher, that few U.S. consumers appear to want to buy service at speeds of 50 Mbps or higher.

Time Warner Cable  added 212,000 high-speed Internet subs in the first quarter, with about 1,000 buying the ultra-high-speed Docsis 3.0 services. That represents about one half of one percent of new customers, roughly in line with the few figures that have emerged from other ISPs able to sell 50 Mbps to 100 Mbps access services in Europe or North America.

The number of wideband subscription adds in the first quarter are consistent with recent trends at TWC, the only major US MSO so far that's even been willing to share those numbers. In January, TWC said it added only about 2,000 wideband subs in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Comcast, which has 80 percent of its plant wired up for wideband and intends to finish the job later this year, hasn't disclosed any D3 subscriber figures.

AT&T noted during its first quarter conference call that 59 percent of its customers buy access at speeds of at least 3 Mbps. What that might suggest is that most consumers still do not buy ultra-fast connections, preferring medium-speed connections instead.

"Soaring Profits" for Broadband Access Providers?

The Phoenix Center says claims by proponents of increased Internet regulation are quite wrong in claiming that firms such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint-Nextel, Qwest, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable are making "record profits," "substantial profits" or  "soaring profits" that justify further regulation.

Quite to the contrary, those firms are earning at lower rates than the average Standard & Poors 500 firms does, and have done so for the last five years.

The Phoenix Center found that the profitability of the larger broadband access service providers is generally equal to, or below average, for firms in the S&P 500. It would be more accurate to say that profits are "'typical," not "soaring or 'substantial.'

Conversely, content firms like Google and EBay are substantially more profitable than the access providers are,  implying that access providers are not benefiting as much as others in the Internet ecosystem from the surge in broadband adoption and use.

Across all measures of profitability, Google and Ebay are two-to-four times more profitable than the better performing broadband providers.

In fact, the Phoenix Center found that both Wal-Mart and Colgate-Palmolive have much higher profits than the large access providers.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has issued a challenge to the industry for data-driven analysis," according to study co-author and Phoenix Center President Lawrence J. Spiwak. "Accordingly, parties calling for regulation need to present more than just hyperbole about 'soaring' profits -- they need to present facts."

"The evidence shows that BSP profitability is fairly typical of American industry, if not a little low" said study co-author and Phoenix Center Chief Economist George S. Ford, PhD. "Based on available evidence, regulatory intervention based on substantial profitability by large BSPs has no basis in fact."

Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, Comcast Federate New York Hotspots

Federation nearly always is good for widespread adoption of any application. Email and text messaging provide recent examples, as usage exploded once messages were made interoperable. But one can point to any number of other examples, including railroad, telegraph and telephone services, each of which benefitted from interoperability.

A positive usage effect likely will happen for cable public hotspot users as Cablevision Systems Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc. and Comcast Corp. have agreed to allow their broadband Internet subscribers to roam freely across the Wi-Fi deployments of all three major cable operators in the New York metro area.

The agreement will allow customers of those companies to use Wi-Fi for no additional charge in places like Madison Square Park in Manhattan, areas of the Jersey Shore and the Hamptons on Long Island.

In key ways, the agreement attempts to keep pace with public hotspot access offered by Verizon Communications and AT&T. The issue isn't so much the public hotspot access as such, but the fact that cable modem, DSL and wireless dongle services now typically come with "no additional charge" Wi-Fi hotspot access. So any provider that can offer free Wi-Fi at more locations has an advantage retaining and acquiring fixed broadband access customers.

AT&T, Cable Companies, Intel, Microsoft Back Broadband Stimulus Application

A newly-formed coaltion of cable companies, AT&T, Intel, Microsoft and industry trade and non-profit groups have created a "Digital Adoption Coalition" to apply for funding under the "broadband stimulus" program.

The Digital Adoption Coalition includes AT&T, BendBroadband, Bresnan Communications, Bright House Networks, Cablevision Systems Corp., Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications, Connected Nation, Eagle Communications, Inc., Dell, Intel Corporation, Mediacom Communications Corp., Microsoft, Midcontinent Communications, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), One Economy Corporation, Sjoberg’s Cable TV, Suddenlink Communications, Time Warner Cable, US Cable Group, and USTelecom.

To improve broadband access, services, and technology in approximately 250,000 low-income households nationwide, the coalition would work with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to increase broadband outreach efforts in public housing, project-based Section 8 properties, and multi-family assisted communities.

One Economy, a global nonprofit, filed an application with NTIA on March 15 on behalf of the coalition for funding through the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) to support digital literacy training, discounted computers, and project administration.

Few Takers for 50 Mbps Access

Time Warner Cable has about nine million high-speed access customers. It has about 20,000 customers for its fastest DOCSIS 3.0 service, which depending on configuration can support speeds up to about 43 Mbps per 6 MHz channel in the downstream direction, or more, if more bandwidth is made available.

All that means is that few customers are willing to pay $100 a month or more to get really-fast broadband access running at speeds of about 50 Mbps maximum.

Cablevision and Scripps Networks; Fox and Time Warner Cable Deals Have Implications for Telcos and App Providers

Cablevision and Scripps Networks Interactive have reached an agreement that paves the way for the return of the Food Network and HGTV programming to the cable operator’s system. Inability to come to terms meant HGTV and Food Network disappeared from Cablevision after the old contract expired on Dec. 31, 2009 and the two sides could not agree on terms for a new contract.

Separately, News Corp and Time Warner Cable managed to agree on a new deal without a service interruption. That deal meant no service interruption for viewers of the Fox television stations, Fox, Fox Cable Networks and Fox’s Regional Sports Networks.

That deal also covers Bright House Networks sibscribers in Florida.

DirecTV and Versus have not come to terms and Versus has been dark on DirecTV since Nov. 11, 2009.

Contract disputes between programmers and cable operators are not new, and the precedent likely applies to telcos and their application providers and handset providers as well. Which is to say that although all the value chain or ecosystem partners rely on each other to create end user value, each participant has a specific role in the value chain and distinct financial interests that have to be accommodated.

The same sort of thing exists in the online video and music and e-book reader spaces as well. The point is that there is a temptation to see application providers and Internet access providers as enemies with little in common. In fact, applications make networks valuable, and without networks, the increasing number of valuable network-based services cannot work.

Of late there are signs some of the former tension between Google and some ISPs, for example, has melted. Google and Verizon are working together on creating applications and optimizing Android device operation on the Verizon network, for example.

That isn't to deny that some amount of tension always will exist between ISPs and application providers. As the cable, music (Apple and music companies) and online video examples illustrate, each participant always will seek to maximize their own value and revenue within the overall value chain and ecosystem.

Financial interests are distinct, not identical. Ultimately, though, a stable ecosystem producing end user value will benefit from some stable understanding that key value chain participants all must profit, if the widest use of new applications and maximum end user experience are to be supported.

It won't be easy. Skype is a contributor to the declining value of basic voice revenues, for example. App developers obviously want to secure a place in the revenue and value chains. ISPs want to continue restructuring their own revenue models away from voice and towards new services based on IP networks.

Over-the-top app providers often believe they "don't need the ISPs." But over time, as the cable example shows, and as music, video and print content value chain participants will have to continue to work out, the best outcome is a flourishing new value chain where the key participants all win. That's best for providers and best for end users. Though it certainly will not be easy, it is the best way forward.

Metered Internet Access Plans Coming?

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt says in a CNBC interview that the question of how consumers pay for their broadband is "an evolving thing." Britt still does not believe the existing flat rate for unlimited usage pricing plans are going to exist universally, indefinitely.

Verizon EVP Dick Lynch also has noted that Verizon would have to consider some form of tiered or metered bandwidth in the future.

One might argue that such plans will be available, with a premium price. But many, if not most other plans likely will move to some pricing format more nearly resembling the way people now buy buckets of wireless minutes or text messages. Consumers nearly universally dislike true metered usage plans, but have shown a level of comfort with "buckets." That suggests buckets will be the path forward for broadband services that must take some account of drastic bandwidth consumption patterns imposed by video content.

Some idea of the need for such plans, sure to be initially unpopular with some consumers, is the cost of continually providing more bandwidth, with modest increases in new revenue. At least some independent service providers have argued for years that fiber-to-home investments cannot be justified in tradtional "five year return on capital" criteria.

In that view, operators need to invest in FTTH "to keep their businesses," essentially. Yankee Group analyst Vince Vittore says that sort of refrain was current at the most recent Fiber to the Home conference.

Cable competition is a primary motivator in that regard. But experience so far continues to show that the financial return from an FTTH network is not assured nor easy. Nobody expects a return on invested capital in five years, as once was possible for many types of network investments.

Nor does anybody seem to believe it is possible to earn a return on FTTH networks based principally on incremental revenue from optical access, or even from providing video entertainment services. One need look no further than that to discern the industry emphasis on new applications, services and revenue.

Usage that is more closely tied to actual usage will happen. That doesn't mean it will be as strictly metered as electricity or water. But think about wireless buckets of use and one can conceive of metered service plans that consumers do not find inherently objectionable.

AT&T, Verizon Will Gain Video Share in 2010

AT&T and Verizon are slowly gaining share in the U.S. multi-channel video market, while satellite providers DirecTV and Dish Network are holding their own, with Comcast and Time Warner Cable under a bit of pressure, but possibly facing more erosion over the next year, new surveys by ChangeWave Research suggest.

A key factor is simply that AT&T and Verizon now are able to market video services to millions more customers every year as they build out their new networks. Given a choice, some customers will exercise that choice, and switch from a current provider to one of the telco-provided services.

To the extent that customer satisfaction has a direct effect on churn behavior, Verizon, AT&T and DirecTV also stand to benefit, as their customer satisfaction ratings are at least three times higher than those of Comcast and Time Warner Cable, according to a recent Changewave Research survey of nearly 3,000 end users.

Still, market share changes relatively slowly in the video entertainment market. When asked whether they planned to switch TV providers in the next six months, about 12 percent reported they’ll be switching.

That works out to about two percent of the customer base a month, a figure quite consistent with what video operators have seen in recent years. But users rarely behave precisely as they say they will. One might expect churn to wind up being less than two percent a month, but more than one percent a month.

Also, service providers recently have found churn levels lighter than usual, in part because of slower housing starts, in part because of “save” offers made when customers call to disconnect, in part because bundles save customers money.

But prices seem to have very-high importance. According to the Changewave survey, price is the reason half of the “switchers” plan to make a change. Only about 10 percent indicated they would switch to get a bundle.

If price drives half the changes, rather than some other service attribute, many users who plan to defect will wind up staying because of a “save” offer that addresses the price objection.

Market share changes over the last year show just how stubbornly service providers are fighting to prevent churn in a saturated market that mostly is a zero-sum game.

For the U.S. market as a whole, cable TV operators retain dominant market share of 65 percent while satellite providers have 25 percent market share. Telcos now have 11 percent market share.

Comcast, with 23 percent share, slipped about one percentage point over the last year.
Time Warner Cable, with 11 percent share, gained one market share point over the same period.

DirecTV, with 13 percent market share, was unchanged over the year. Dish Network, with nine percent share, lost one share point over the last year.

Verizon’s FiOS has five percent share of the national market, while AT&T U-verse has three percent of the national market.

About 54 percent of the Changewave respondents who say they intend to switch providers say they will choose a fiber-optic service, an eight-point increase in three months.

Verizon FiOS TV remains the top provider that switchers plan to move to in the next six months. But AT&T’s U-verse service has jumped seven percentage points since Changewave’s March survey and is currently showing the most momentum among providers.

By way of comparison, just four percent of switchers saying they’ll sign up with Comcast and one percent say they’ll buy from Time Warner Cable.

Changewave researchers think cable and satellite providers will, for these reasons, face headwinds as the telcos gear up.

Fiber TV providers boast a big lead when it comes to customer satisfaction levels. Some 38 percent of subscribers say they are “very satisfied.”  About 27 percent of satellite subscribers say they are “very satisfied.”

About 13 percent of cable subscribers say they are very satisfied. So satellite subscribers are twice as satisfied as cable customers while fiber TV customers are three times as satisfied as cable customers.

The difference is even more evident at the individual company level, where Verizon has the most satisfied customers. About 47 percent of Verizon FiOS TV customers say they are very satisfied, while 39 percent of AT&T’s customers say they are very satisfied.

Some 34 percent of DirecTV customers say they are very satisfied. Just 11 percent of Comcast and Time Warner Cable customers say they are very satisfied.

Consumer Behavior in Recession was as Expected

Time Warner Cable's third quarter results provide a bit of concrete evidence that consumers did what they said they were going to as far as watching their spending on communications and entertainment services because of the recession.

Consumers said earlier in 2009 they were least likely to cut or reduce spending on Internet access and most likely to cut back on buying pay-per-view movies downloaded over the Internet, according to a new survey by Alcatel-Lucent. But mobile service, basic entertainment video service and telephone lines were among the items consumers said they were most likely to keep, though cutting back on things such as going to night clubs and concerts or going out to movies and restaurants.

All of those patterns would be in keeping with past consumer behavior in recessions.

(see http://ipcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/06/network-services-generally-safe-but.html, http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7312392900566055630&postID=5497830666217750659)

Generally speaking, people said they would be keeping their broadband Internet, wireless and video entertainment services, though showing much more willingness to curtail adding new enhanced or premium services.

Some surveys suggested consumers would accelerate their abandonment of wired voice, while others suggested demand for fixed telephone services would hold up.

Time Warner Cable's results show that broadband Internet additions held up as expected, though sales of digital video, a premium upgrade, fell, as consumers suggested would be the case.

Time Warner's new voice customers also appear weak, though that bit of data does not necessarily confirm analyst expectations. Existing customers of other voice services might simply have stuck with their existing providers instead of switching to Time Warner Cable.

Overall net new additions tend to show the impact of consumer caution. The company added 117,000 revenue generating units in the third quarter, compared to 522,000 a year ago.

More to the point, Time Warner added 8,000 net new digital video customers, compared to 56,000 net new subscribers analysts were expecting. It added 62,000 net new voice customers where analysts had expected 107,000. The firm also added 117,000 broadband Internet access customers, where analysts had expected 115,000.

So broadband held up, while digital video activity fell, as did voice services.

Still, there are lots of variables to consider. Local market competitive conditions can sharply affect results, as do promotional activities.

Comcast, for example, saw its digital video customer base grow a net 7.4 percent, while adding 6.4 percent net new broadband customers and 20.3 percent voice customers.

Still, the point is that consumers had suggested, and history suggested, that wireless, broadband Internet and entertainment video growth rates would slow, but that the services themselves would hold up. It appears they did, at least for these two large cable operators. At&T and Verizon also added large numbers of wireless customers, as well as a decent number of video and broadband access customers.

Consumption-Based Billing Coming?

Sandvine has released Usage Management 2.5, a software solution that enables fixed-line network operators to implement consumption-based billing models, real-time subscriber communications and multiple service plan tiers. The move is significant as it suggests retail pricing might move in that direction in the future, representing a major shift in retail pricing models.

Historically, consumption-based billing has been problematic for Internet service providers. Time Warner Cable tested and then decided not to implement metered billing earlier in 2009 after widespread consumer resistance to tests in in Rochester, N.Y., Austin and San Antonio, Tex., and Greensboro, N.C.

User behavior also is powerfully affected by billing methods. At one point in time America Online charged users by the minute for their dial-up Internet access usage. When it converted to flat fee billing, usage and subscribers exploded, and AOL became the largest U.S. ISP.

Similar results have been seen when other types of services, such as voice calls, also moved from per-minute to flat rate or "buckets" of usage. Generally, users spend more time talking or using the Internet when they are not metered for that usage.

Mobile voice services have a half-way approach that combines usage limits with much of the perceived freedom users feel when they are not charged strict per-minute charges. Such "buckets" of usage are a likely direction much retail Internet access pricing will move as bandwidth-intensive applications become more important and if new "network neutrality" rules forbid ISPs from shaping overall demand at times of peak congestion.

The alternative to traffic shaping then would shift to other measures such as increasing raw bandwidth or providing incentives for users to limit their consumption at peak hours. The former obviously requires more investment, which then would have to be reflected in higher prices, while the latter would allow for more gradual investments and therefore stable or more slowly increasing prices.

One problem today is that few consumers have any idea how much bandwidth they use. The new Sandvine tool would simultaneously allow users to monitor and understand their own behavior, as well as provide ISPs with better ways to create plans matched to end user behavior.

The Sandvine tool also would help ISPs create quality-sensitive service or personalized plans, assuming Federal Communications Commission or Congressional rules allow them to be offered.

Bandwidth Caps a Competitive Disadvantage?

Time Warner Cable has shelved its plans to shift its residential broadband customers to “consumption-based billing”, at least for the moment, as a way of controlling excessive bandwidth use by a small number of really-heavy users and maintaining quality of service for other users who share the network. Short of investing in a higher-capacity access network, it isn't clear how some way of matching consumption to cost is avoidable, long term.

But that points out one advantage Verizon Communications has: it has ample access bandwidth to provide uncapped usage, which could become a marketing weapon wherever it competes with other providers who do impose caps or other sorts of restrictions.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2009/04/20/story5.html?ana=from_rss

Bandwidth Caps Driving Dissatisfaction?

One wonders whether consumer outrage about Time Warner Cable's bandwidth caps play some role in Time Warner Cable's low consumer happiness ratings.

Time Warner ranks on this March 2009 survey as low as Charter, which never has had especially high consumer satisfaction ratings.

Frankly, we are used to seeing Time Warner rank higher than this.

Ranking that low--equivalent to Charter-- is absolutely nothing to be proud of, and quite a change from past years.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/162928/time_warner_changes_but_keeps_bandwidth_caps.html?tk=rss_main

Time Warner Cable Shelves Bandwidth Caps

Time Warner Cable appears, for the moment, to be retreating from its bandwidth cap tests in four U.S. cities, temporary ending a controversial experiment that would have created new usage buckets.

Those plans would have featured a lighter user plan featuring 1 Gbyte per month of usage for $15 per month. About 30 percent of Time Warner Cable customers use less than 1 Gyte per month.

Other plans would have featured caps of 10, 20, 40, 60 and 100 GBytes, plus an unlimited plan for the highest-speed 50 Mbps service.

Fuzzy Thinking on Network Neutrality

With the caveat that "network neutrality" means different things to different people, it is striking that some observers think bandwidth caps for excessive use have anything whatsoever to do with network neutrality.

That's a little like arguing bigger or smaller buckets of mobile voice or text usage constitute some sort of "neutrality" issue. It's a business issue, nothing more.

The discussion is sparked by news that Time Warner is testing usage-based pricing for broadband access in a few markets, for new customers. The idea undoubtedly is that the new plans will be price neutral for 95 percent of customers, and affect only "extreme" downloaders or really-heavy peer to peer customers.

Once the test starts, new customers will be offered a choice of four plans that allow them to download set amounts each month--5, 10, 20 or 40 gigabytes. The typical user now consumes something on the order of three gigabytes a month.

Test of Tiered Pricing for Broadband Access

Time Warner Cable is testing usage-based broadband access pricing, according to Broadbandreports.com. The move is hardly surprising. Most Internet service providers report that a fraction of all users, about five percent or so, use over half of all access bandwidth.

The Time Warner test presumably aims to discover how such usage can be monitored by end users themselves, how scalable the process might be, and possibly whether such heavy users will upgrade to higher-usage plans or flee to another provider.

Over time, it seems inevitable that heavier users will find themselves facing universal caps on their usage and the ability to buy plans that support their higher usage levels.

Broadandreports.com says the test will involve new customers in the Beaumont market, not existing customers. Those users will be placed on metered billing plans where overage charges will apply, and provided a web site where they can track their usage and upgrade, if required.

In principle, the approach is akin to how mobile pricing plans now are structured, where users can choose higher usage or lower usage plans for voice and text usage.

One way or the other, as video becomes a bigger part of overall broadband usage, it is inevitable that usage-based plans supplant current "all you can eat" plans. Video is the reason.

Video consumes vastly more bandwidth than Web surfing, email or voice, requiring across the board capacity increases in the network backbone and access networks. That obviously costs money, and those costs will have to be recovered.

Usage-based pricing is coming because it has to.

Comcast, Time Warner Won't Bid for 700-MHz Spectrum

Google is in, Time Warner Cable and Comcast are out, at least in terms of submitting an initial bid for 700-MHz spectrum. The big issue is how many of the incumbent wireless carriers will participate in the initial round. Verizon has been seen as a certain bidder, at&t a possible bidder, T-Mobile a potential bidder as well.

Cable companies have bid for spectrum in the past, in partnership with Sprint. So far, though, financial results from the cable-Sprint collaboration in the consumer market have been disappointing, though it remains unclear how much of the sluggishness is attributable to operational or marketing issues, and how much to "core competency" issues.

Up to this point, cablers have been most successful with products that can be delivered over their own plant. Wireless is outside that realm. Wireless might also be an area where telecom companies simply have more "core competence" capabilities that force cable companies to compete where they have few natural advantages.

For the moment, cable executives seem unwilling to acknowledge that wireless services are strategic.

Consumers really don't want a quadruple-play bundle, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt insists. "I don't think the quadruple play is a big deal," he says. "So far we've not seen a great demand for that." Comcast likewise only says it continues to study the matter of wireless services closely and continuously.

BT Joins Fon

BT has decided that Fon, the global user-built Wi-Fi network, really is complementary to telco networks, and has joined the FON community, creating a new service known as BT Fon. U.S. cable operator Time Warner Cable also has done so. The value proposition might be pitched as "free Wi-Fi access when you roam if you buy our broadband."

The result is that now millions of BT broadband subscribers can automatically opt-in to the BT Fon community, potentially expanding the footprint where BT customers can get connected.

Fon users who are not BT broadband customers will not automatically get free access to the commercial BT Openzone hotspots and Wireless Cities hotzones and hotspot network serving 12 cities at the moment. They will get access at reduced fees, however. Access to BT Fon user Wi-Fi zones will be reciprocal.

And BT is putting its money where its mouth is, becoming a shareholder and partner in Fon. So Fon now is part of BT’s strategy to provide wireless broadband not just inside the home, but outside as well.

Neuf Cegetel in France also has joined the Fon community.

The deal also means that users of BT Fusion dual-mode handsets will be able to use those devices in far more locations around the world than had previously been possible. FON also has a software client that can be used on Nokia's Wi-Fi-enabled Nseries handsets.

BT Fon has the potential to dramatically increase the size of the global Fon network, as BT has more than three million consumer broadband customers who are free to opt in to the program. By way of contrast, Fon's global network now stands at 190,000 hotspots.

The Fon router sets up a secure channel of 512 kbps that is available to other Fon users.