Who's Going To Buy Sprint Now? Verizon? Comcast? Google? (S, VZ, CMCSA, GOOG)

Now that AT&T is buying T-Mobile for $39 billion, something is probably going to have to happen with Sprint, the no. 3 carrier that has had a pretty rough time since closing its merger with Nextel half a decade ago.

If Sprint has a tough time competing today, imagine how it's going to be when its biggest competitor grows one-third bigger. At the end of 2010, AT&T had 96 million wireless subscribers and T-Mobile had 34 million, for a combined total of roughly 130 million. Verizon had 94 million. Sprint Nextel, meanwhile, finished the year with 50 million.

So what can Sprint do?

In the short term, it's going to raise a stink about how the merger is bad news for the wireless industry. (Though AT&T has already put on a lengthy show about why the deal is actually good news for consumers and, obviously, for AT&T itself.)

In the medium to long term, Sprint is probably going to have to be involved in consolidation. It can either be the buyer -- as it was considering with T-Mobile before AT&T won that deal, and can now look at U.S. Cellular, MetroPCS, and/or Leap Wireless -- or it can be rolled up. These days, it's looking more like Sprint is going to be absorbed.

So who might be the buyer?

Verizon Wireless is the most likely buyer, just because it's already in the same business as Sprint.

Combining Verizon and Sprint would make it the biggest U.S. wireless carrier, with 144 million subscribers as of the end of 2010. Verizon and Sprint both use the same 3G network technology -- CDMA -- so that would be a relatively easy combination, as opposed to either of them trying to combine with GSM-based T-Mobile. They currently have different 4G networks -- Sprint's through its stake in Clearwire -- and Sprint has that whole Nextel walkie-talkie network to deal with. But those problems could be figured out. (Maybe a crazy sign-and-trade deal with Motorola for the Nextel/iDEN network?)

This, like the AT&T-Mobile deal, would face extreme regulatory scrutiny. But it's one reason for Verizon to let the T-Mobile deal pass without creating a stink.

Comcast has supposedly been eyeing Sprint for years, and now that the NBC deal is done, might be able to pounce.

Comcast is the biggest cable provider in the U.S., and theoretically, would want to offer some sort of wireless service in the future. This could be useful for data "roaming" away from your home cable modem, watching TV on the go, combining your mobile and home phones, etc. It would also give Comcast, which only serves cable in some areas, a national footprint.

But so far, Comcast boss Brian Roberts hasn't really cared that much about wireless. Early integration attempts with Sprint -- "Pivot" -- failed. Comcast has invested in Clearwire alongside Sprint, Time Warner Cable, and others. But that's about it.

Roberts could make a big splash here, or he could ignore the opportunity, focusing instead on integrating NBC. We'll see.

Google buying Sprint would be a stretch, but anything's possible.

Google's best interest in the wireless industry is to remain a neutral partner, hoping that as many carriers in the world promote Android phones (and Google search/ads) as possible.

But don't you think the geniuses at Google are a little fed up with how the carriers have taken Android, filled it up with crapware, and haven't done anything innovative with it? The main reason carriers even care at all about Android now is that it's a decent competitor to the iPhone, which most of them can't sell yet.

How about some drastically creative services and pricing? How about something radically new that will change the way we communicate?

By having control over the software layer and the network layer, Google might be able to create that. And that could really show AT&T and Verizon -- which both suck at software -- some real competition. This could be a really cool deal for consumers.

But this would be an uncharacteristically big bet for Google, and it would involve a lot of things that Google isn't good at, like retail and customer service.

Perhaps it's better off just investing in wireless companies like Clearwire, making phone software as good as it can, and hoping for more deals like the one it announced with Sprint today, to integrate Google Voice service into the network's offerings.

Either way, Sprint is probably now in play. Other potential suitors could include private equity, maybe Cisco, or maybe even an international player.

Related: AT&T-Mobile: The Biggest Winners And Losers

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• AT&T Makes The Case For Its $39 Billion T-Mobile Deal
• AT&T-Mobile: Here Are The Biggest Winners And Losers
• CHARTS: AT&T Explains Its $39 Billion T-Mobile Deal

Who's Going To Buy Sprint Now? Verizon? Comcast? Google? (S, VZ, CMCSA, GOOG)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/MCXWsTMovJE/sprint-verizon-comcast-google-2011-3

Netflix Is Streaming 15X More Movies Than Apple (NFLX, CMCSA, AAPL)

Another reason Netflix's subscription-based movie business is in better shape than some may think: Because people can stream a lot of movies for the same monthly price, and that seems to be a popular value.

NPD Group said today that Netflix's share of movies streamed or downloaded in January and February reached 61%.

That's 15X the 4% share that Apple's iTunes movie store reached, although it's a different business -- at iTunes, you have to pay for each movie rental or download individually. (And they're not very cheap, given that they are often newer titles, versus older movies from Netflix.)

And that's almost 8X the 8% share of Comcast cable video-on-demand. (Not including free movies streamed on Comcast VOD or premium-subscription-channel VOD like HBO or Starz, which NPD doesn't measure, for some reason. We've reached out to Comcast to try and figure out what percent of its VOD movie streams are being neglected by this study, but haven't heard back.)

For context, Comcast had about 20 million digital video subscribers at the end of 2010 -- about the same size as Netflix's subscriber base.

Digital video is now almost 1/4 of all home video volume, according to NPD.

Read: Apple TV Still Flying Off The Shelves At Amazon

Join the conversation about this story »

Netflix Is Streaming 15X More Movies Than Apple (NFLX, CMCSA, AAPL)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/wN01ArCvvs4/netflix-is-streaming-15x-more-movies-than-apple-2011-3

Comcast Doesn't Plan To Charge Bandwidth Hogs Extra... Yet (CMCSA, AAPL, NFLX)

Comcast president Neil Smit said today that the cable giant doesn't have plans to start charging its broadband subscribers by how much bandwidth they use per month.

Not yet, at least.

But come on, of COURSE Comcast isn't going to make the massive announcement at an investor conference, and spook its customers.

However, you can bet that if Comcast isn't the first major U.S. broadband company to get rid of all-you-can-eat Internet access, it will eventually.

Charging for broadband based on consumption is the holy grail for Internet providers -- it would almost certainly increase the amount that customers spend, on average -- and Comcast would never let its competitors get a financial leg up.

Especially because that's how Comcast is going to stop Netflix! Charging for Internet access based on consumption would deter people from watching more high-bandwidth Internet video on iTunes or Netflix, which represents the biggest threat to Comcast's legacy cable TV business.

Perhaps the real reason it isn't going to start charging based on consumption yet is that the average Comcast customer isn't consuming much bandwidth in the first place.

Smit said the average Comcast user consumes 2 to 4 GB of bandwidth per month -- which is barely 2 or 3 iTunes-sized movies per month.

Related: If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access
• 10 Apple TV Apps We Can't Wait To Use
• Apple TV Is #13 Best-Selling Gadget At Amazon, Google TV Is #430

Comcast Doesn't Plan To Charge Bandwidth Hogs Extra... Yet (CMCSA, AAPL, NFLX)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/9Pnn5PcfBJ0/comcast-doesnt-plan-to-charge-bandwidth-hogs-extra-yet-2010-12

If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCSA, GOOG, NFLX)

It looks like FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the lobbyists from Google will get their way: Net neutrality seems surer than ever, for better or for worse*.

But this will likely mean the end of all-you-can-eat Internet access for consumers, and will likely lead to more expensive Internet access, especially for those who watch a lot of online video.

If the FCC Chairman's plans, announced today, are adopted, this means that Internet service providers would not be able to treat some Internet traffic better than other Internet traffic (for a fee, of course), and will have to treat all traffic equally. (With some exceptions, like managing their networks.) That's "net neutrality."

This is generally perceived as good news for Internet companies like Google and Facebook, and not-as-great news for telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. (Though the telecom lobbyists should get a bonus, too, for preventing Genachowski from "reclassifying" broadband services, which would have opened a whole new can of worms for the telcos.)

But because the ISPs won't be able to set up express lanes with toll booths anymore -- not kosher, per net neutrality regulations -- they're going to have to find growth somewhere. And it's going to come directly from your pocket now.

As online video -- via sites like Netflix and Apple's iTunes -- becomes more popular, it's adding more cost to the ISP business, without adding more revenue.

So the ISPs will have to find their revenue growth by getting rid of all-you-can-eat broadband access, which millions of Americans have enjoyed for more than a decade, and by starting to charge Internet users by how much bandwidth they consume.

If it's priced in a way that's not offensive, this seems fair. That's how you pay for electricity, heating and cooking gas, and water, so why shouldn't it be the way you pay for Internet access?

But we get the sense that people just aren't going to like it. Too many people think they should be able to get everything they want on the Internet for free. So it's probably going to get ugly, and it could take a long time to roll out.

But let's face it, it's inevitable: Your all-you-can-eat Internet plan is likely going to be history. And if you watch a lot of Netflix and Hulu online, your Internet bill is probably going to go up substantially.

Just because online video is the future, doesn't mean it's going to be cheap.

* We're still not convinced that net neutrality -- government regulation -- is necessary, or a good idea. More here: Here's What's Missing From All The Net Neutrality Blather: Nothing Bad Is Going To Happen If Net Neutrality Dies

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Comcast Starts The Ball Rolling That Kills All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access
• Here's What's Missing From All The Net Neutrality Blather: Nothing Bad Is Going To Happen If Net Neutrality Dies
• The REAL Issue In Comcast's Dispute With Level 3: It's About Power, Not Money

If Net Neutrality Is Coming, So Is The End Of All-You-Can-Eat Internet Access (CMCSA, GOOG, NFLX)

Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/c-BQRdhyiu4/if-net-neutrality-is-coming-so-is-the-end-of-all-you-can-eat-internet-access-2010-12