For the past two days I’ve been attending a conference in San Diego focused on BPL (broadband over powerline) and sponsored by the United Power Line Council (UPLC). Though I haven’t digested it fully yet, a couple of things stand out so far:
Of the 125-150 attendees at the conference, which has been held at least several times before, a substantial majority appeared to be first-timers.
BPL technology has come a long way in a pretty short time and continues to evolve at a healthy pace. But the most commonly held view among utilities seems to be that, while its getting very close, BPL is not quite ready for large-scale commercial deployment.
Even after waves of mergers, the utility industry remains less concentrated then the cable and telephone industries, and still relatively fragmented in terms of how its members view BPL.
State regulation will have a major impact on how different utilities view BPL, and that a few BPL regulatory models are beginning to emerge, most notably in three large states—TX, CA and NY.
Internal utility (i.e., “smart grid”) applications are a very important part of the BPL business case for utilities and, for most, the primary driver for serious consideration for a BPL investment. This element could prove key in economically justifying investments in what, in most areas, will be the third major entrant into the broadband access business.
Utilities are not inclined to be retail broadband service providers, with some wanting a role as wholesalers, and others preferring joint-venture, passive-investment or “landlord” models for provision of broadband services. This role may be heavily influenced by the regulatory rules different states apply to BPL investments.
BPL networks are being designed to support symmetrical services, something that could provide competitive advantage relative to cable and telco broadband networks, especially when next-generation chipsets are introduced later this year.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 10:58 PM | Print | Comments (0)Internet search giant Google issued its Q4 05 earnings today, showing surging revenues and net income but less than anticipated (but still strongly increased) international revenues and higher than anticipated tax costs. Despite the strong growth in sales, investors panicked and started bailing on Google’s sky-high stock in after-hours trading.
Google reported revenues of $1.919 bil. for Q4 05, up 22% sequentially and 86% year-over-year, spectacular growth for any other company — but heated expectations surrounding Google drove the company’s stock to over $400/share by year-end 2005, prompting Wall Street analysts to ratchet up their anticipated numbers for the company.
Net income was $372 mil., or $1.22/share, up from $204 mil., or $.71/share during the year-ago quarter. Excluding factors such as stock compensation, Google’s net income per share was $1.54, lower than the $1.74 or so analysts had been expecting.
Google had spent more than anticipated on international efforts, which had the effect of raising the company’s overall tax rates — more net income was taxed at higher U.S. rates. The net effect: Google’s shares plunged 16% to $364.08/share in the first two hours of after-stock trading following the release of the company’s report.
Google execs, however, were very upbeat during the earnings call. “We’re very, very pleased with our performance on every level,” CEO Eric Schmidt said.
| Google Financial Data | |||||
| ($ in 000s) | |||||
| 4Q04 | 4Q05 | ||||
| Revenues | $1,031,501 | $ 1,919,093 | |||
| % quarterly growth | 28% | 22% | |||
| Google Web Sites | $ 530,388 | $ 1,098,213 | |||
| % of total revenues | 51% | 57% | |||
| Google Network Web Sites | $ 489,993 | $ 798,573 | |||
| % of total revenues | 48% | 42% | |||
| Total Ad Revenues | $1,020,381 | $ 1,896,786 | |||
| % of total revenues | 99% | 99% | |||
| Licensing and Other Revenues | $ 11,121 | $ 22,307 | |||
| % of total revenues | 1% | 1% | |||
| Income from Operations | $ 302,799 | $ 569,640 | |||
| Operating Margin | 29% | 30% | |||
| Net Income | $ 204,100 | $ 372,208 | |||
| International Rev. % Total | 35% | 38% | |||
|
  
|
|
|||
| Ending Permanent Headcount | 3,021 | 5,680 | |||
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 7:45 PM | Print | Comments (0)
San Mateo, CA-based time-shifting pioneer Sling Media has landed $46.6 mil. in financing from an impressive list of investors. Liberty Media, EchoStar, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Allen & Co., Doll Capital Management, Mobius Venture Capital and the Hearst Corporation are among the new or renewed investors in the company, which makes the SlingBox, a device that enables live TV multichannel viewing via PCs or other devices anywhere in the world.
The two most intriguing investors among the batch of new backers are Liberty Media and EchoStar. Liberty Media is headed by media and cable pioneer John Malone, and owns Starz Entertainment, which already has a video-over-the-net service, Vongo. EchoStar is the DBS multichannel video provider that provides customers with set-top boxes already capable of time-shifting via DVR functionality.
It could be that these investors just know a rising star when they see one. But it’s also possible that these media-related titans could also see a way toward integrating their services and devices with Sling Media products.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:21 PM | Print | Comments (0)The Street.com’s Sandy Brown reported yesterday that DBS rivals EchoStar and DirecTV plan to team on WiMax service, which News Corp. has already confirmed it will help mount. According to Brown, the two companies have gone as far as issue bids to tower builders.
The teaming of the two foes would indeed be a remarkable event, and put investor and psychological pressure on the cable industry — even if the real-world impact of such a pairing is tangential. Neither satellite provider is capable of offering high-speed service or VoIP, and therefore face stiff competitive disadvantages against cable, and to a lesser degree telco, operators as the battle for the bundled home continues.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:26 AM | Print | Comments (0)Google’s decision to offer a censored service in China is still the stuff of headlines. First, a little tempest-in-a-teacup has been brewing over Google’s decision to not attend a Congressional Human Rights Caucus event this week. Google is not alone is skipping the briefing chaired by Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) — Cisco, Microsoft and Yahoo will also be absent from the discussion, which focuses on human rights and the Internet in China.
According to an article today from the San Francisco Chronicle, though, both Cisco and Yahoo will attend a February 15 hearing to be held by the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, an inquiry that touches on the same issues.
Finally, Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby has this editorial today standing up for Google’s decision to offer services in China. Mallaby is facing his own Google-like dilemma — a publisher in China wants to publish his book on the World Bank as long as Mallaby agrees to certain edits demanded by censors. He faced his own internal ethical debate that examined whether it was better to circulate his book in China in a censored form or not have it circulate at all.
For guidance he turned to Google.
It is creating a search service in China, http://www.google.cn/ , but it is not erecting cyberwalls or helping to arrest people. The new Google search service will give Chinese users access to better information than they had before — a clear gain for freedom. And although the search service will be censored, it’s hard to see this as a net loss. The censored material would not have reached China without Google’s investment. And that’s not the best bit. Google has negotiated the right to disclose, at the bottom of its Chinese search results, whether information has been withheld — a disclosure that may prompt users to repeat their search using google.com instead of google.cn. Of course, the second search might be frustrated by Cisco’s routers. But disclosing censorship is half the battle. If people know they are being brainwashed, then they are not being brainwashed.
So Mallaby offered his Chinese publisher the same solution: publish his book, but with notations where material has been censored. He hasn’t heard back, but given that he opted to publish an op-ed piece related to censorship in China, chances are slim that the publisher will take him up on his offer.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 7:41 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
