Does Wireless Need Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality has been a hot topic.  While the FCC attempts to revise its rules, many are still unclear what it all means.  In essence, net neutrality for the internet means that all web sites would have equal access to consumers accessing them, whether the data is light use email or heavy use video streaming.  Netflix, leading the way with heavy usage, has made deals with cable companies to assure that it gets premiere broadband access.  And while they can afford it, many argue that lack of net neutrality favors big business at the expense of start up web companies.

But as net neutrality rules are being reworked, you would be surprise to hear that these rules have been strictly toward wired broadband connections.  The mobile space has been mainly unregulated in the broadband space.  According to the NY Times, that exemption is being reviewed.  "On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission will hold a round-table discussion to examine whether proposed net neutrality rules should cover mobile broadband."  With so many consumers accessing the web through their cellular connections verse a WIFI one, it is hard to believe that the two platforms were being treated differently. 

Technological change as wireless carriers have upgraded their systems has led to such a move. And again, according to the NY Times, "Now, with advanced LTE networks complete, a growing portion of consumers use mobile as their primary method of connecting to the Internet, meaning a wireless exemption would leave those consumers without net neutrality protection."  And as younger consumers cut the cord on cable connections, their cellular subscription becomes their primary communication, information, and entertainment portal."  If my children didn't have access to WIFI inside the house, they would definitely be using their cellular connection.  In fact, I sometimes check that their smartphones are still connected to the WIFI so that our cell bill doesn't get impacted.

Does wireless need net neutrality?  All broadband, whether wireless or wired, should be treated similarly.  While I oppose to much government regulation and prefer an open economy to manage supply and demand, broadband has become as essential a basic right as shelter, food, and the right to education.  I would prefer that the FCC spend more time lowering the barrier to entry to enable more companies to compete in the broadband space.  The rise of competition is the best means to assure consumers right to choose a source for their broadband connection. 

Should Amazon Buy Radio Shack

What business isn't Amazon into these days, from web retailer of a vast array of merchandise to streaming video platform to digital hardware maker.  And thanks to the web, their reach is limitless; wherever there is delivery, there is Amazon.  And Amazon scares many other retailers because they do it without the added costs of brick and mortar, rent, property taxes, utilities, that add to the costs of merchandise and causes retail prices to rise. 

But Amazon also knows that customers like to touch and test and taste before they price compare and buy and why not do it in an Amazon store.  So speculation comes that Radio Shack, close to bankruptcy, but nationwide with retail locations, might be an opportune acquisition to rebrand as an Amazon store.  According to Marketwatch, "it would enhance Seattle-based Amazon’s already robust focus on local, showcase more Amazon products and services, such as the Fire smartphone and Kindle, and enhance pickup and distribution, making for a more seamless transition between clicks and bricks."

While  the idea is sound, it raises the costs that have previously allowed Amazon to price its product lower than brick and mortar.  And is RadioShack the right choice?  Most of their stores have a small footprint making it difficult to display a lot of merchandise.  Would another larger retailer with bigger stores make more sense?  Could Barnes & Noble or Best Buy be a better target?  If the strategy is to enter the brick and mortar business, then Amazon should keep its options open. 

Is It Time To Throw Away The Newspaper?

Given the ease and immediacy of the tablet, the advantages of home delivery of the newspaper has shrunk.  But change is hard and I have enjoyed getting the paper delivered to the home every morning for a very long time.  I still remember back in school when our teacher wanted us to get the Wall Street Journal to best understand the market and the economy.  For those that love the morning paper and a good cup of coffee, it is endless joy to read "all the news that's fit to print". 

But over the last year, my home delivery has been sporadic.  Missed delivery, late delivery, previous day's paper delivery have all added up to a poor customer experience.  And each time that happens, I turn to the web or to the paper's corresponding app to get my news instead.  I have resigned myself to one last mistake before pulling the plug on home delivery of the newspaper.

What will I save? First, peace of mind that the newspaper will be automatically accessible in my iPad as I have become more comfortable reading the paper on a smaller electronic device.  Second, a cost savings that drives up the cost of a print edition higher than digital.  And third, less time wasted calling the newspaper to complain, getting a one-day credit, and arguing that its delivery service will cost them a subscriber.  I know I am not alone.

Funny, the paper that causes me the most angst is the NY Post.  My NY Times and Wall Street Journal print subscription both give me app access to their papers.  And I appreciate it.  My NY Post subscription does not give me access to their app.  And their website is difficult to navigate and limited in the articles posted to what is in the paper.   So one last mistake and I am making the switch.  And once I do, I will likely do the same with my other papers.  Perhaps I will keep the Sunday print edition of the NY Times, but the more comfortable I get with reading on the tablet and the less I have to deal with shoddy home delivery, the better I will be. 

Playstation To Go OTT

Playstation parent, Sony, wants badly to be in the OTT business. And unlike Intel and its OnCue attempt, Sony seems to have a plan.  Intel tried building its own set  top box while Sony has the power of millions of Playstation boxes already out in the field.  The next step is content and Sony plans to deliver. 

Per the Wall Street Journal, Sony has "reached an agreement for its planned Web-based TV service to carry MTV, Nickelodeon and 20 other Viacom Inc. channels and offer access to streaming Viacom programming on mobile devices."  And as Playstation reaches a core young adult and teen audience, Viacom networks like Comedy Central, MTV, and others seem a terrific fit.  Intel eventually sold OnCue to Verizon and so far we have heard little about their plans with the acquisition.  Others, like Dish Network, also want to get into the web TV gain.  Of course the question remains, will consumers embrace getting fewer channels although at a lower price.

Should cable operators be worried?  Remember that the same lines that deliver cable TV also delivers broadband to the home and services from Sony or Dish or others in the OTT space still need a broadband platform to deliver streaming content.  Cable operators could simply charge more for broadband only connections.  At the same time, cable operators can negotiate with the networks for additional access of linear and VOD content for streaming, an opportunity that would give customers a better TV Everywhere experience.  Lastly cable operators can enhance their value with deals with other box companies like TiVo, XBox and others.  And cable operators can still tout the power of more... more content, more accessibility, more value.

As this rock rolls down the mountain, the moss that it gathers will be more content companies doing deals with OTT.  Discovery Networks has been mentioned as another possible content seller to Sony.  Others will no doubt follow.  For cable, all is not loss; just remember that what got you your size doesn't keep you number one.  Its time to act. 

Should Microsoft Buy Minecraft

With all the news about smartphones and smart watches, Microsoft wants to remind us that they are relevant, too.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft " is in serious discussions to buy Mojang AB, the Swedish company behind the popular "Minecraft" videogame, according to a person with knowledge of the matter." 

Yes, Minecraft has been a very successful game but for Mojang, just as Angry Birds is to Rovio and Candy Crush is to King.  And yes, Minecraft has had a much longer run than those others in sustained popularity.  But the consumer is a fickle lot and at some point they tire of old and seek new and different.  As for this moment, the video gamer is buying up Destiny according to publisher Activision Blizzard.  Does Mojang have more in the pipeline for Microsoft to engage in acquiring? 

And yet I wonder if this planned acquisition is consistent with their strategy.  It seems over the summer, the plan was to drop it content business to work on the cloud.  Xbox, while a nice business was rumored to be a possible spin-off and the future focus was cloud computing.  So where does gaming fit into that chart?  Is this the business that Microsoft wants to move into?  It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Apple Drops The 'i'

Yesterday, when I brainstormed some names for Apple's new wearable, I suggested that Apple replace with 'i' with an 'ap'.  Well I was close; they dropped the letter and instead took my ap idea and added another 3 letters.  The new product is called Apple Watch. Not so revolutionary a name but certainly one that the public will find easy to understand.  Unfortunately at a price tag of almost $350 and availability in 2015, we will have to wait a long time before we can actually get it.

Interestingly, Apple stopped with the iPhone and Apple Watch.  No mention of new iPads or new laptops.  But it is only early September and the holiday season is still months away.  My gut says another announcement in early November with releases of new iPads, new iMacs, and hopefully an update to the Apple TV.  Hey, we need something to buy this December.

What Will They Call Apple's New Wearable

With just a few hours remaining before Apple's press announcement, many are speculating what will be formally revealed.  Will it be new iPhones, iPads, and other software improvements?  And what about the iWatch, a brand name not ever publicly mentioned by Apple?  So what might Apple call their new wearable device?  Here are a few suggestions and please comment to add your own:

iWear   
iHealth
iMove
iLive
iSmart
iFit
iComm
iPhaz
iCord
iMove
iRule
iStaple
iMotion

Perhaps, it is time to replace the 'i' with another designation, perhaps an 'ap' to represent Apple.   Each of those brands could be renamed as follows:

apWear
apHealth
apMove
apLive
apSmart
apFit
apComm
apPhaz
apCord
apMove
apRule
apStaple
apMotion

Apple could also gain ownership of brands that have already created i devices. Brands like iHome could be used for Apple with new names like apHome.  Apple might be quick to trademark all possible uses of an 'ap' designation.  Whatever name, they call it, ultimately consumers will decide if it has appeal and value.  The Apple clock is ticking and the announcement is coming soon. 

Amazon Fire Fizzle Leads To Price Drop

On the heals of new iPhone releases, Amazon has quickly reduced the price of its smartphone, the Amazon Fire, from $199 to 99 cents.  Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis could have a field day with this news.  According to Business Insider, "Even with the slashed price, the phone still comes with a year of Amazon Prime, which includes free shipping on millions of items as well as a growing selection of free movies, books, and music."  Current customers should demand their money back given that the phone has only been out less than 2 months.  I doubt that this news creates that much more demand.

The Reinvention Of The Smartwatch

Tomorrow marks a potential big announcement by Apple of its first wearable device, the iWatch.  Many have also wondered why Apple hasn't come out sooner with this new product.  But that doesn't seem to be Apple's modus operandi. 

To illustrate, recall that the iPod wasn't the first mobile music device.  Prior to its release, we had the Sony Walkman followed by a ton of digital devices that tried to capture and play music.  I owned an mp3 player and could never get it to download music from my computer and play it back.  I hated it.  The arrival of the iPod brought a simplicity and ease-of-use that took years to be duplicated. 

Since then, the rate of change has been rapid. And Apple has responded by doing to the world of smartphones what it did to music players, reinvented them with the touch screen.  Like mp3 players, the Blackberry and other non-touch phones became uncool.  Again, Apple was not the first to release a smartphone, it just did it differently.

So tomorrow, we may just hear about the next wave of new devices.  And typical for Apple, it could be a device that others, like the Samsung Galaxy, Sony, and the Pebble, have already released.  But if Apple is true to form, the Apple iWatch will also be different and if done right, will revolutionize the wearable marketplace.  Articles on it range from the ergonomics and fashion focus of the device to the Health apps, wireless charging, and NFC chip for mobile payments.  But most importantly, it needs to follow the Apple strategy of simplicity and ease of use.  Done right, the Apple iWatch, or whatever they officially call it, will again show that Apple motto  to 'Think Different'.  Stay tuned.