No EchoStar Purchase for at&t

at&t appears to have decided not to buy EchoStar to jumpstart its TV business, as it has boosted its dividend and launched a stock buyback program.

In total, at&t might spend roughly $17 billion in 2008 on dividends and buybacks, consuming most or all of the cash its businesses are likely to generate, leaving little to finance a purchase of EchoStar.

at&t also plans to expand U-Verse to cover 30 million households by 2010 in the 22 states where AT&T is the main local-phone company, up from an earlier target of 18 million households.

Broadband access strategy might have played a role in the thinking as well. By speeding its TV capabilities, at&t automatically creates a better network for high-speed access as well.

Make that 9 Reasons IT Won't Support iPhone

Apple appears to be working on improving the iPhone's support of Microsoft's Exchange email platform, which could finally deliver true syncing capabilities, eliminating a potential objection to enterprise adoption. At least that's what one would conclude from a new company job posting.

The listing seeks a "motivated, highly-technical Exchange test/sync engineer with excellent problem solving and communication skills."

"You will join a dynamic team responsible for qualifying the latest iPhone products," the company wrote. "Your focus will be testing Exchange and Outlook functionality with Apple’s innovative new phone."

So far, the iPhone's official support of Exchange has been limited to IMAP functionality.

The lack of full support for the Microsoft platform is commonly cited as one of the primary barriers to adoption of the Apple handset by businesses, as Exchange is widely deployed as the email solution of choice amongst the corporate world.

But there are lots of other reasons enterprise IT might not be rushing to embrace the iPhone as an officially supported device. See the post below.

10 Reasons IT Won't Support iPhone

Forrester Research has put together a really good list of the top 10 reasons enterprise technology managers will not to support the iPhone. The objections are valid and important. And somehow we think users are going to use iPhones anyway, with or without enterprise support. Some of the objections are more important than other.

But Forrester analyts also note that enterprise "C" level executives are using them anyway, so it is only a matter of time before the iPhone filters down the corporate pyramid.

1. Doesn’t natively support push business email or over-the-air calendar sync. The iPhone can sync with Microsoft’s Exchange and IBM’s Lotus Notes over IMAP and SMTP ports, but server and security administrators have to configure their infrastructure to do so or purchase a mobile gateway. The issue is "doesn't natively support" push email. People can work around that, or the email services can be tweaked. A problem, but not a really big problem.

2. Doesn’t accommodate third-party applications, including those internally developed. This is a big problem. But Apple software engineers must know this. And there are rumors Apple already is working on a software developer kit that should take care of this objection.

3. There isn't a way to encrypt data on the device. Yes, this is a pretty big problem.

4. Can’t be remotely locked or wiped in the event of a lost or stolen device. Also a big problem.

5. Lacks a hard keypad that provides feedback, which isn’t ideal for rapid and accurate input. Not a major objection, ultimately. Yes, accuracy typically is less than on a QWERTY keyboard. But this is an irritant, not a show stopper. And people get better at it with practice, it seems.

6. Limited service provider support and its carrier lock-in inhibits flexibility. Issues, yes, but not as big a deal as the security issues.

7. It is expensive. Well, it is being bought by consumers, who bring them into the enterprise environment, so not a direct enterprise problem.

8. Is only the first generation, and lacks 3G support. This problem fixes itself.

9. Lacks a removable battery. Definitely an irritant. Apple doesn't seem to want to sell replacement batteries. But that support isn't available for iPods either, and we have found ways to replace those batteries.

10. There are no case studies of firms that have deployed it enterpris-ewide. Sure, IT will say this, but it isn't a major objection, ultimately.

One reason the iPhone probably is used in smaller businesses is that people don't have all those custom apps to support. And we are entering an era where maybe there are some devices and apps that IT will simply say it won't support, but users can buy them and do their own support. Younger users will do that. Even some of us older users will do so.

Really, its is the security and support for proprietary enterprise apps that are the real barriers.

Qwest to Reinstate Dividend

Qwest Communications will issue its first dividend since 2001, setting a recurring quarterly payout to shareholders of eight cents per share. In some ways, the move represents the final end to the "dot bomb" and telecom crash of the early 2000s.

Zayo Buys Citynet Fiber Network

Zayo Group is acquiring Tulsa, Okla.-based Citynet Fiber Network, the wholesale division of communications provider, Citynet. CFN will become part of Zayo Bandwidth, Zayo Group's fiber based bandwidth business unit.

The CFN network has 8,500 route miles of fiber covering 57 Tier I-III markets in 10 states. The company's on-net buildings encompass many major carrier locations like local exchange carrier central offices, carrier hotels and wireless mobile switching centers.

The transaction is acquisition number six for Zayo, and part of the continuing consolidation trend in the U.S. metro access space.

Conflicting Regulatory Silos Keep Popping Up

One of the problems everybody faces as we move increasingly to a world of IP-enabled communications, information and entertainment is that a growing clash is occurring, piecemeal, between historically-distinct regulatory silos. Whether we can stumble forward forever, without acknowledging the end of regulatory silos, as well as technology or industry silos, remains open to question.

The problem is simply that different sorts of activities and businesses are governed by distinctly-different frameworks. Magazines and newspapers, for example, operate under First Amendment "free speech" rules and have virtually no "common carrier" obligations.

TV and radio broadcasters operate under different rules, with more limited "free speech" rights (broadcasters do not enjoy unrestricted rights to transmit any sort of content). Cable TV regulation is more akin to broadcasting than telecom regulation, but there are some tax and local franchising rules that are more akin to common carrier businesses.

Telecom companies operate under the most-restrictive rules, with legal requirements to interconnect with other telecom service providers and deliver their traffic. Data services and content generally have been immune from these rules, though. That's why the Web, and Web content, have developed essentially as a zone of freedom.

Of course, in the U.S. market there is more talk about "network neutrality", a troublesome issue not because of the immediate implications some attribute to it, but because it is just one more examples of how the old "silos" of regulation are breaking down, and becoming intellecutually incoherent in a world where media, TV, radio, music, talk, testing, Web surfing and data communications all occur over one physical pipe.

Should that not require some harmonization or revamping of the fundamental regulatory regimes each of the media types up to this point has enjoyed? And here's the crux of the matter: how does one square first amendment, "zone of freedom" rules historically applied to newspapers, magazines, data services and the Web, with common carrier rules applied to telcos, or the quasi-regulated broadcasting industry?

The fact that delivery modes change does not alter the zone of freedom newspapers, magazines and other media, even "Web media" are supposed to have. And the U.S. courts have ruled that corporations do possess rights of free speech as well. So the issue is whether the zone of freedom is expanded or contracted as multiple media types are delivered over IP pipes.

So it is that some consumer and public advocacy groups are urging the Federal Communications Commission to declare that "short code" text messages deserve the same nondiscriminatory treatment by telephone carriers as email and voice messages.

So are "short codes" advertising, a direct response mechanism, or are they "speech." And whose "speech" rights are supposed to be protected? Those of the speaker, as the early founders seemed to think, or the rights of the "listener," as jurists increasingly have argued over the past 50 years or so?

The issue is more complicated than sometimes positioned. Text messaging services might include a "zone of freedom" in terms of what is said. But note that the freedom is for the speaker. But who is the "speaker" whenever we are looking at media?

The Washington Post might not accept advertising from its competitor, the Wall Street Journal. Verizon Wireless might not accept ads from Sprint or T-Mobile. Cable companies don't take ads from telephone companies marketing competing services. In those cases, rights of speech are exercised by a "speaker." A TV, cable or radio network has the right not to allow speech (advertising also is speech) to be paid for and transmitted.

The fundamental problem is that as IP pipes carry virtually all communications, information and entertainment, we are going to see more disjointed efforts to regulate "unlike" things in "like" ways. That will be the corollary to regulating "like" things in "unlike" ways.

at&t Renegotiates Yahoo Deal

at&t says it is close to renegotiating a contract with Yahoo Inc. that undoubtedly will result in Yahoo earning less money. Under the current deal, Yahoo earns as much as $250 million a year of revenue. The renegotiation is expected to affect other deals Yahoo has with other telecom service providers.

The renegotiation is a reminder: large telcos often partner with other entities when entering a new market, and sometimes move slowly in those markets. That doesn't mean the relationships are stable. Ultimately, as they acquire the skills they believe they need, and scale, some partners aren't so important and "value" moves back inside the service provider organization.

There sometimes is a perception by outsiders that telcos are too "dumb" or "too slow moving" to dominate new markets. On the contrary, telcos are big enough, and smart enough, to wait for markets to develop before making a move to dominate. It's a business strategy, not an indication of "not getting it."