iPhone To Be Offered From Multiple Carriers, eh

from the in-God-Phone-We-Anti-Trust dept

Given all the talk in DC lately about anti-competitive exclusive cellphone distribution arrangements, it's very interesting to see a rumor broken by the Globe and Mail about the iPhone in Canada. According to The Globe, Rogers will soon lose its iPhone exclusive as both TELUS and Bell Mobility add the iconic device to their Christmas line-up. Bell and TELUS are migrating away from the CDMA technology they have used up to 3G, towards the more globally compatible GSM evolutions. To minimize costs, the two carriers are building a single shared-infrastructure network, on which they will both sell services. While Rogers, the long-time GSM user, will have the wider network footprint and offer iPhones fall-back to their 2G data networks when out of 3G coverage, that advantage is countered by TELUS and Bell offering 3.5G HSPA+ speeds to Rogers' 3G. Under current coverage conditions, iPhone urbanites might prefer the new entrants, while sub-urbanites may prefer Rogers.

What is most interesting here is the break from Apple's conventional one-country-one-carrier strategy, which has attracted the attention of more than a few countries' regulators. The Canadian case will be the first market where competing carriers offer the iPhone, without a regulator forcing Apple's hand. Perhaps Germany will follow Canada: there are rumors that T-Mobile will lose their exclusive deal with Apple by year's end, and British/Spanish carrier O2 will enter the market with preferable iPhone plans. In the USA, most of the hot water Apple is swimming in is because the FTC isn't happy with the iPhone app approval process, which nixed the Google voice app. But while the FTC branch is focused on the App Store, some Congressional Reps are voicing their displeasure at the exclusive iPhone deal with AT&T. Governments around the world aren't sure what to make of exclusive phone distribution deals - which, strangely, never seemed to raise an eyebrow until the iPhone. In France, the Orange-Apple 5-yr exclusive was smacked down by the feds who argued that an exclusive arrangement would add "a new element of rigidity in the sector which is already suffering from a lack of competition." But here's where I'm not so clear.

I agree that exclusives, when examined in isolation, are anti-competitive. But overall, I'm not clear on how a 2007 new entrant (Apple), with a disruptive device that lit a fire under the incumbent vendors, could be perceived as "anti-competitive" in terms of net results. In fact, the exclusivity has undeniably forced the competing carriers to work their butts off to come up with a comparable device, seeking it from the likes of Nokia, Samsung (which are scrambling to respond, though they'd never admit it), or newer players like HTC or INQ. The exclusive deals seem to be spurring competition. In contrast, in a world where every telco carries the iPhone, the telcos actually can worry less about offering something else that's equal or better. I suppose someday it could make sense to go after Apple exclusives, but why not wait until the net effect on society is actually negative in some measurable way? A good rule for government should be, "When in doubt, leave it alone."

Meanwhile, the Canadian case will certainly offer Canadians more choice among iPhone providers, and most notably iPhone plans. Canadians tasted the bitter flavor of inadequate competition when iPhone data plans were first announced there in mid 2008. Three-year contracts, no unlimited data plan, high per-MB pricing, and a triple lock-in. Yes, Canada may soon see more service competition around the iPhone -- but will Canada see more or less device competition?

Derek Kerton is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Derek Kerton and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patents Not Enough Of A Monopoly, According To Biotech Firms

from the say-what? dept

Apparently, a bunch of big biotech firms feel that the patent monopolies they already have over certain drugs aren't enough, and they are demanding Congress enact laws that also stamp out any competition from similar drugs (known, back here in the real world, as competitors). You would think that after centuries of understanding how bad monopolies are for the market that the gov't wouldn't kowtow and simply hand over such things -- but it is. Of course, the biotech firms already have patents, so it's questionable why they also need an additional gov't granted monopoly period to block out "biosimilar" drugs, other than the fact that they don't like competition.

They claim, of course, that they need this exclusivity to recoup their costs in developing the drug. However, the deeper you look at the details, the less true that really is in practice. Much of the really core biotech work is done under gov't grants anyway, and often at research institutes. These private firms pick up the trail later in the game in a lot of cases -- but still get full patent rights. The actual cost of developing these things has been massively overstated, often lumping in marketing costs to R&D. It is true that clinical trials are crazy expensive and a huge burden on biotech and pharma companies, but that's a separate issue. There are numerous proposals about ways to take the clinical trial burden expense away from pharma. Lumping those mandatory gov't induced expenses into basic R&D is misleading. Furthermore, even in the face of competition, time and time and time again, we've seen that the original provider still commands a large and noticeable premium, from which it can easily recoup its costs. This is nothing more than blatant monopoly rents with a Congress too clueless about basic economics to resist.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Are Cable Companies Looking To 'Emulate' Web Video Sites, Or Destroy Them?

from the face-value? dept

A piece in BusinessWeek says that cable TV companies are "pushing to become more Web-like" by expanding their online video offerings and making their core TV product work more like the web than the traditional channel-delineated system. On the face of it, this is a good thing, since we've long argued that the TV channel is an outdated concept, and should be seen as being like a web bookmark more than anything. But the article largely glosses over one key point in the cable companies' push to grow their online video efforts: they want exclusivity. So instead of throwing things open and using an ad-supported model, like Hulu, they want to take TV shows and video content, and lock it up inside a walled garden for paying customers. That's not "web-like", it's exactly the same as their current business model. Of course, even if these plans don't work out, they've got another way to try and profit from online video: by introducing capped broadband plans that will charge customers based on how much traffic they use. Time Warner's CEO is quoted in BW as saying "we really need to look at what consumers want." It's hard to imagine they want capped broadband, and they want video locked up behind paywalls. The popularity of the likes of YouTube and Hulu indicate they want something very different from what the cable operators have in mind.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Groups Again Take Aim At Cellphone Subsidies

from the teeter-totter dept

There's been a constant clamor over the past few years from some consumer groups that want to see mobile operators forced to stop locking handsets they sell, so that phones will be able to work with any compatible operator. The argument is that locking handsets to operators diminishes the competition among the operators, particularly when operators compete by getting exclusive deals on particular devices (such as the iPhone, which is locked to AT&T). But it's always seemed that the groups are looking to have their cake and eat it too: the locked devices and contracts operators use allow them to recover the subsidies they spend to drop the upfront costs of handsets. So if the groups want to do away with locks and other techniques that support the subsidies, that's fine, as long as they're also willing to accept higher device costs. But somehow, that part always gets left out, just as it has in stories covering the latest push by the groups (via MocoNews) and some smaller operators to get the government to outlaw handset exclusives. If these groups want to eliminate cheap handsets for consumers, they need to explain that -- or explain exactly how these regulations they want won't serve to lower service prices, but offset that with much higher device prices.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cable Companies Negotiating To Control What TV Shows You Can Watch Online

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Earlier this week when Hulu cut off Boxee, supposedly at the request of its content partners, there was some speculation that the real pressure may have come from the cable companies who are losing customers at a pretty rapid clip. And, while the content companies pretend to deny it, the fact that people can get so much content for free online is almost certainly contributing to that situation.

Now, in theory, this should be a good thing for the TV guys -- who you would think want as many people watching their shows/channels as possible. But, the problem is the business model. Doesn't it always seem to come down to the business model? The TV networks make so much money by selling the channels to the cable companies, that they're scared to death of losing that revenue. We saw a hint of this late last year when Viacom and Time Warner Cable played a big game of chicken over channels like Comedy Central and MTV.

However, now reports are coming out that the cable companies are negotiating with TV programmers to offer their TV content exclusively via their cable internet offerings. In other words, forget Hulu and routing around the cable company and the $80/month they're charging you. You'd have to keep your cable, even if you don't want it, just to get access to many TV shows over the internet (well, legally). Not surprisingly, both the cable companies and the TV programmers seem to like this sort of deal: the programmers continue to get their big fees from the cable companies, and the cable guys avoid losing many more subscribers. Comcast's CEO Brian Roberts is even saying "Online video is our friend, not our enemy."

And, to some extent he's right. If Comcast is going to survive it does need to look at online video as a friend, rather than an enemy -- but the problems may come about if they think that they can force customers to only get online TV if they keep their cable TV service at such a high price. Because, while these deals may make sense for the TV networks and the cable guys, they seem to be forgetting the customers -- many of whom have received a nice taste of TV online for free, and aren't going to be happy about having to pay up for it. The problem is that these cable guys aren't adding any new value. In actuality, it seems like they're looking to take away value from what's already out there -- and that never works. It will likely just lead to increased piracy, increased anger at the cable companies, and a continuing of the downward spiral. But, these days, watching old school companies accelerate their own downward spiral happens so often, you almost have to assume it's likely.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Michael Eisner: Exclusive, Professionally Produced Content Will Define The Internet

from the wanna-bet? dept

It's no secret that former Disney boss, Michael Eisner, has a rather confused (and incorrect) view of how intellectual property works, so it should be no surprise that his current business efforts continue to be influenced by his incorrect assumptions. Robin writes in to point us to an interview with Eisner in the NY Times, where he explains that the key to success on the internet will be "professionally produced" exclusive content. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the internet, but one that certainly fits with Eisner's background.

Specifically, Eisner still doesn't seem to realize that the internet is a communications medium more than a content medium. That's not to say that there isn't room for professionally produced content online, but focusing on the "exclusivity" part may lead to trouble. These days, people want to be a part of the content they interact with. They don't just want to watch it. They want to share it, they want to comment on it -- they want to be a part of that content. Focusing just on professionally produced and exclusive content is missing the point. We already have media for that: television and movies. The internet is nothing special if it's just yet another way to deliver professionally produced, exclusive content -- and sooner or later perhaps Eisner will realize this. Perhaps it will be the same time that he finally learns that Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with defining modern intellectual property laws, as he's insisted for years.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wikileaks Tries Auctioning Off Leaked Documents

from the interesting-experiment dept

We've been talking about the variety of new and different business models springing up around investigative reporting, and here's another interesting take on the matter. Wikileaks, the site that's become rather infamous for publishing all sorts of leaked documents is experimenting with auctioning off the latest set of documents its received (in this case, emails from the Venezuelan government). Wikileaks will publish the emails itself eventually, but wants to offer a news organization a chance at the exclusive rights to publish the initial stories on the documents, seeing that as a way to raise money to keep Wikileaks going.

As the folks at Wikileaks point out, it's not all that different than various tabloids paying millions of dollars for "exclusive" photos of some celebrity's new baby. However, with newspapers struggling with their own business models, it's unclear who's really going to cough cash up to get exclusive access to these documents. Also, this model runs all sorts of risks: what if the emails don't really reveal that much of interest? Then you're going to have a pissed off buyer. Plus, the whole obsession with "exclusive" news stories is pretty silly. You can't own the news, and while being first on a story may gain some initial traffic, other news sources will pick up the story pretty quickly themselves.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Video Gamers Sue EA Over Exclusive Sports Games

from the yes...-but... dept

Sports video games are a huge business -- and for many years, it was an extremely competitive space. I remember a few years back trying to wade through half a dozen different baseball video game titles to figure out which one was worth buying. However, a few years back, video game giant EA started signing "exclusive" deals with a variety of sporting leagues, including the NFL. These "exclusive" deals supposedly meant that only EA could produce games with the names and stats of real players -- a huge selling point among most fans. And, of course, in gaining exclusivity, EA has completely cashed in. However, a bunch of angry video gamers are now suing the company for anticompetitive conduct, noting that these exclusive deals killed off all the competition, allowing EA to drastically raise its prices.

Of course, there's a separate issue that might make these gamers (and other video game companies) happy: with the recent rulings concerning fantasy baseball, it appears that the court system recognizes that player names and stats are public domain data. Thus, even with the "exclusivity," other video game companies should be able to include real player names and data. They probably still cannot use real league logos, and even player likenesses may be out (which, again, is often a big selling point) -- but hopefully it at least brings some competition back to the market.

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sprint And Affiliate Sue Each Other Over Legality Of New WiMax Effort

from the bad-blood dept

In certain markets, Sprint has always used affiliates to sell its service, rather than building out its own efforts. Some of those affiliate relationships caused problems back in 2004/2005 when Sprint merged with Nextel -- as Nextel's service existed in some of those markets, potentially "competing" with the Sprint affiliates who had agreements that Sprint would not compete directly. So, with the new WiMax joint venture with Clearwire, Sprint knew that the big affiliate iPCS would be upset. In fact, last week, Sprint sued iPCS in Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment that the new joint venture did not break their agreement with iPCS. That lawsuit appears to have been filed slightly before iPCS filed its own lawsuit in Illinois against Sprint. Chances are the two suits will be combined in some manner, but it's yet another hurdle that Sprint needs to clear before it can get this new WiMax offering off the ground. Sprint may have a decent claim here -- as the agreement with iPCS is focused only on 1.9GHz spectrum, whereas the WiMax network is on 2.5GHz spectrum. Either way, it seems like these affiliate relationships may be a lot more pain than they're worth.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Corporate Doublespeak: By Forcing Competition On The Market, We Will Need To Raise Prices

from the these-guys-are-slick dept

Earlier this week we wrote about plans by the FCC to ban deals that gave a single service provider exclusivity to an apartment building or housing development. Service providers (particularly the cable companies who locked many of them up) loved these deals as they were granted a guaranteed monopoly. Of course, most of us realize that monopolies are bad for consumers and lead to higher prices (monopoly rents and all). Yet, now that they're gone, Comcast is responding to the deal by saying that it's actually competition that will cause them to raise prices. Reader slide23 writes in to point out Comcast's corporate doublespeak:

The following statement may be attributed to Sena Fitzmaurice, Senior Director of Corporate Communications and Government Relations: "Consumers in apartment buildings and condos across the nation received a blow today from the action taken by the FCC. The result of this decision is likely to be higher prices for services and years of litigation and uncertainty for consumers. The significant concessions building owners have been able to bargain for on behalf of their residents will be lost."

Yes, Comcast is going to use the fact that they now have to compete within apartment buildings to raise prices. Or, so they say. Somehow, you get the feeling that once the local DSL providers starts offering faster/cheaper service, Comcast will have a change of heart on the matter. More seriously, perhaps what Comcast really means is that it believes these kinds of services are natural monopolies, which may actually be a defensible position. Of course, Comcast probably doesn't want to go down that path at all. Once you admit you're in a space where a natural monopoly makes sense, then you open yourself up to forced line sharing and (more importantly for Comcast...) regulations barring any kind of traffic discrimination. Given last week's Comcast kerfuffle over traffic jamming, the last thing the company should be doing is suggesting that competition hurts the space, because that just gives politicians all the ammunition needed to put network neutrality laws in place.

The company can't really have it both ways. It can't go around saying it can run its network like a private company in a competitive market that doesn't need any regulation out one side of its mouth, while at the same time claiming that it's facing a natural monopoly where competition hurts the market out of the other side.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..