Comcast, Charter Probably Will Team to Buy Time Warner Cable

With Charter Communications maneuvering to buy Time Warner Cable, Time Warner itself has signaled a preference for an acquisition by Comcast.



But that would be risky, in regulatory terms, as Comcast already is the largest U.S. cable company, with market share just above 30 percent, and gobbling the number-two U.S. operators would likely trigger a negative antitrust response.



So Charter Communications hopes Comcast will join Charter in a joint bid, with a prior agreement on how Time Warner Cable assets would be divided. 



Cable operators have experience with joint bids, and have in the past done precisely that. 



For Comcast, such an approach has benefits. For starters, Comcast would not acquire all of Time Warner Cable, just the New York assets. So while Comcast would get bigger, it would not get substantially bigger. That might mollify regulators and antitrust authorities.



Also, the New York market would have strategic value for Comcast, which would then be able to expand its business customer operations in a market with high business customer potential. 



Owning the metro New York assets also would better position Comcast for an eventual bid to buy Cablevision Systems, which operates on Long Island. 

Will Apple Transform Mobile Payments?

I have in the past argued that the one technology company that could really shake up mobile payments was Apple. At least so far, though, Apple has not made a move, for sensible reasons. 



Apple's services approach has always been structured in ways that help Apple sell devices in the consumer market, and it hasn't been so clear how an industry-leading mobile payments capability necessarily would create a new device market. 



One might argue such a capability would help Apple sell more iPhones and iPads, but that is a different matter, something more incremental, and not the foundation for a whole new product category Apple can re-imagine and reinvent. 



But that might be changing, as there now are reports Apple is looking at creating a service handling payments for physical goods and services on its devices. Apple's iTunes and Apple Store already process remote payments, though indirectly, linking credit or debit cards to iTunes accounts. 



But Apple perhaps senses the growing role of commerce in providing both direct revenue and indirect business benefits is reaching a point where it could make a big difference. 



Consider the fact that, for the first time in history, major technology leaders have revenue models anchored on advertising (Google) and retailing (Amazon). Now "payments" creates the revenue model for firms such as Square. 



Now we might see whether Apple can transform retail payments and thereby create a major new revenue driver for a technology firm. 

One Good Reason Why Disruption of Any Media or Communications Business Still is Possible

Incomplete knowledge makes rational decision making quite difficult. In fact, some would say incomplete knowledge means it is not possible for people to behave completely rationally, even when they want to do so. 

But since it is a statement of fact that nobody can know everything, there always is the possibility that somebody, with a particular set of domain knowledge, can "see" something other practitioners--with different domain knowledge--cannot perceive. 

For that reason, disruption of any market in media or communications remains possible. 

Hola: Peer to Peer Virtual Private Network

Hola, a new peer-to-peer virtual private network service, is bound to be used by people who want to watch content they are not able to access because that content is not licensed in the nation where they reside.

On a larger level, though, Hola is a way to provide the benefits of a content delivery network without actually using a CDN. It makes the Internet more efficient as well. 

Perhaps intriguingly, Hola also makes it harder for government authorities to track your IP address. 

With the disclaimer that I am not advocating anybody violate copyright rules, the networking approach, and the ability to change an IP address, might in some cases be quite useful, particularly in countries where governments are heavy handed, and where dissent is considered a crime.

Hola is the latest practical implication of P2P techniques historically used by content sharing apps and services, but which have other important ramifications. 

Asia Regulators: Flexibility Now Key in Regulating Spectrum

Shin-Yi Peng

There might just be growing recognition among national communication regulators that spectrum policy requires much more flexibility than in the past.

“Old approaches are ill suited to quickly changing environments,” said Chinese Taipei National Communications Commission Commissioner Dr. Shin-yi Peng, who also is a professor of law at National Tsing Hua University.

As one example, Peng noted that when Taiwan finalized its 4G license rules, it chose a technologically neutral approach that does not specify what technologies must be used, allowing operators to move quickly.  

“Stakeholders asked us whether the licenses would be tradeable,” and Peng said that will be possible. “A secondary market will exist.”

And though large incumbents traditionally have dominated spectrum auctions, Thailand is looking at ways to help smaller and local Internet access providers, for whom free Wi-Fi is most important.

Jesada Sivaraks

But backhaul is an issue, said Jesada Sivaraks, National Broadcasting & Telecommunications Commission of Thailand Secretary. The reason is that many smaller ISPs try to use existing unlicensed frequencies for backhaul, which causes interference issues. So Thailand is looking at whether it can use the E band at 60 GHz, to help small and local providers with backhaul.

Another new line of thinking concerns ways to increase usable spectrum without using the traditional approach of clearing spectrum, relocating existing licensed users, and then auctioning or allocating the cleared spectrum.

“Moving licensees is viewed as difficult,” said Peng. So “spectrum sharing turns out to be an important policy tool.”

“Dynamic spectrum access is new, and we are looking at it,” said Pricilla Demition. National Telecommunications Commission of the Philippines Chief, Frequency Management Division.

Priscilla Demition

Even in the area of mobile backhaul, there is new thinking. The issue is how to get middle mile connections to serve remote areas.  It isn’t as though access spectrum scarce. But middle mile facilities often are lacking

“Licensed mobile operators know it will be years before they get out there,” says Robert Pepper, Cisco VP. “So they are partnering, using LTE for backhaul, then using Wi-Fi to distribute signals in the village.”

“Regulators are starting to see advantages to cooperation between licensed and unlicensed operators,” said Pepper.

Commissioner Peng noted that Taiwan allows use of 3G in 1.8 GHz for backhaul, but only in rural areas.

“LTE for backhaul might be only 1 Mbps to 10 Mbps, which will not be enough bandwidth for local use,” said Sevaraks. “Mesh Wi-Fi might work as well, as might C-band repurposing for mobile or terrestrial communications.”

“The crux of the matter is how to create more useful spectrum,” said Peng.

Is there a Spectrum Crunch?

It might seem odd to question whether there actually is a spectrum or capacity problem in the mobile communications business. 

After all, “globally, we are seeing continued significant (Internet data consumption) growth at 50 percent to 90 percent compounded rates over five years,” said Cisco VP Robert Pepper.

And consumption is increasing, with each new generation of mobile networks. “An LTE user consumes 19 to 25 times as much data as a 3G user,” said Pepper.

And that happens under circumstances where “about 66 percent of mobile data is offloaded to Wi-Fi,” Pepper added. So, to nobody’s surprise, Cisco argues that the gap between available spectrum to support growth and what is needed shows a widening gap.

Still, some might argue the future spectrum gap is the issue, not any immediate current bandwidth shortages. Forecasts of mobile Internet user growth illustrate the potential size of the challenge.

To be sure, there are ways to increase the supply of spectrum. “Possibly 50 percent of the frequencies useful for communications are licensed to government entities,” said Rob Frieden, a professor of telecom law at Pennsylvania State University. “The U.S. government can help free up spectrum, or keep it.”

That will not be an easy process. “In much of the (Asia-Pacific) region, there still is a PTT mindset,” said David Satola, The World Bank USA Lead Counsel and VP. “Equity sometimes is viewed more importantly than efficiency.”

Still, there is “huge demand for mobile Internet,” meaning there will be “lots of battles over who will get to use it,” Satola noted.

Releasing spectrum also will be costly. As always, that raises issues about how to encourage new entrants. 

“How do you encourage entities other than the carriers to acquire the spectrum?” asked Tim Hewitt. KVH Co.senior international legal counsel.

Issuing unlicensed spectrum, of course, is one way of encouraging new application, service and product providers to enter the market.

In that regard, the industry will “need more licensed and unlicensed spectrum, especially short range (5 GHz) for unlicensed” spectrum, in part because “we will be using 80 MHz to 100 MHz wide channels,” said Pepper.

One thing is clear: we should not underestimate the amount of growth. We have done that in the past, though it also is fair to note there have been times when mobile bandwidth consumption forecasts have been overstated.

Should Content Delivery Networks be Illegal?

Have you ever heard anybody argue that Akamai and all other content delivery networks should be outlawed?

After all, a content delivery network gets paid money by some app providers--not all--to speed up delivery of packets over the backbone, providing a better quality of experience for end users.

That isn’t a violation of the notion of an open Internet. Everybody can get all lawful content, either best effort or enhanced by use of a content delivery network.

So, seriously, have you ever heard anybody argue that CDNs should be outlawed, as a violation of the open Internet?

The reason one asks the question is that “network neutrality” rules are the same thing. The only difference is that the CDN function extends not only from data center to data center across the backbone, but extends to the end user location.

By outlawing anything but “best effort” access at the end user location, one also prohibits optimizing a Skype video session while that session is underway, even if that is what the end user wants.

“Best effort only” rules likewise prevent a user from specifying that voice calls get priority when calls are in progress, or that a Netflix viewing gets priority when the family is watching a movie.

So it is disheartening that Reed Hastings, who has done a marvelous job at Netflix, confounding his critics time after time, makes statements that are, to be polite, untruthful.

Hastings, like many application providers, has a position on network neutrality opposite that of Verizon.

So it is unfortunate that his latest letter to shareholders literally distorts and misrepresents existing U.S. Federal Communications Commission policy on impeding or blocking lawful content.

Since 2004, it has been clear that consumers have the right to use all lawful content. The FCC reiterated the policy in 2005.

In 2010 the FCC again clarified that content cannot be blocked. The FCC also said that “A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service.”

As a practical matter, that means no lawful applications can be blocked or impeded, the exception being measures taken to manage the network.

In practice, that means any ISP that actively tried to “slow down” a competing service’s packets would quickly run afoul of the FCC, just as much as if it had tried to block a lawful application. Some skeptics might argue the FCC would not act, but many would find little incentive or precedent for that position.

Hastings argues in the letter that, “ In principle, a domestic ISP now can legally impede the video streams that members request from Netflix, degrading the experience we jointly provide.”

To put matters politely, that seems a clear misreading of the FCC rules. The FCC’s are based on three principles, transparency, “no blocking,” and “no unreasonable discrimination.”

The “no blocking” principle is that “fixed broadband providers (such as DSL, cable modem, or fixed wireless providers) may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.”

“Mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.”

The “no unreasonable discrimination” rule says that “fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service.”

“Unreasonable discrimination of network traffic could take the form of particular services or websites appearing slower or degraded in quality.”

With all due respect, the way Hastings characterizes what now is possible--”legally impeding video streams”--is in no way accurate or truthful.

The irony is that Netflix runs its own content delivery network!