This was at the tail end of the story:

A study commissioned by the National Association of Broadcasters suggested that the adoption of a single mobile digital TV standard would drive the sale of 130 million mobile digital TV phones by the end of 2012.

This piece was interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, I do believe that local news whether in video format or otherwise will be interesting to consumers on cell phones. I don't believe that a single standard for broadcast TV is what is standing between the millions (single digit) that are using mobile TV today on cell phones and 130M others using it. I was surprised there wasn't more about planned handset capabilities such as storage, playback, etc. that would facilitate the time-shifting and place-shifting to which consumers have grown accustomed. Business model? Ads? Content selection? Technology doesn't tend to be the inhibitor or high on the list for consumers. A single standard may help to bring costs down, but that alone won't get us to 130M either.

The announced partners (the ones I've seen so far) are logical.

Clearwire - It's a scale business - makes sense for Clearwire to join in let alone that they can add some of the expertise they've developed over the past couple of years.

Intel - already invested millions (if not more) to develop their WiMax chipsets and to move them into PC platforms. No network = no demand for their chipsets. Moreover, they practically built the Wi-Fi market by spending upwards of $350M (at least the public number, but could be higher) promoting Centrino/Wi-Fi and educating consumers.

- Cable companies ... logical, but still challenges ahead. Some of them (if not all soon) just threw in the towel on Pivot Wireless - their answer to AT&T's and Verizon's bundled offerings. WiMax is meant to be a data network. Interest in broadband wireless connectivity outside the home is high. Demand is moderate, but willingness to pay is still low today. We expect it to grow over time.

- Best Buy - could never figure this one out. Let's hope to not see the mistakes of past be repeated with non-telecom entities wanting to run wireless service operations or networks. (Search MVNO for all the blog postings I've written). Building networks and acquiring customers is really, really hard ... and then you have to collect money from them.

- Google - They've been seeking more open access to a wireless broadband network for years. There was the Earthlink Muni Wi-Fi deal in San Francisco that fell through. There is the constant petitioning of the FCC. There was the original agreement struck with Clearwire and Sprint. What has characterized these deals, however, has been lack of control - at least Google's control over the execution. I'll wait to see the announcement to see how much money they are going to commit ($500M is a lot of money, but very affordable to Google - see the cash on their balance sheet) The question will be ... what can one buy for $500M? or a $1B investment? What control does one get?

Intel needs people to buy chips in laptops and handhelds. Cable companies want triple/quad plays. For these partners, the investment looks to be more table stakes for their future strategies / return on investments to date to compete with AT&T and Verizon who are rolling out video offerings faster than the cable companies are rolling out wireless voice.

Google makes money from advertising - so more inventory at higher rates serves them well. Higher rates are plausible - if you add context (e.g., location) to search terms, you can charge more. Leading someone into the nearby auto dealership to buy a car is worth more than driving web traffic to gm.com. How much inventory can benefit from context including location? That's an unknown, but likely a question Google can answer. It's a fair expectation in any case, that more "access" will be wireless going forward than wired in terms of new devices added. We also know that people do more browsing on larger devices (e.g., portable media players) that can benefit from broadband than cell phones. (see the Admob data in our report) And, the CTR's seem to be higher. A lot of this browsing is also done off carriers' networks on Wi-Fi.

Someone asked me what this means for AT&T and Verizon? My first reaction is that I don't believe they'll feel threatened. The investments will certainly give Sprint a boost and make the liklihood of this network being built out higher. AT&T and Verizon are the market leaders in wireless as measured by number of subscribers - they are by definition less likely to take risks. Besides, they already have home (wired) + wireless plays. Verizon can be confident they'll benefit from the scale of LTE as it's the natural evolution of GSM - the mostly widely adopted standard worldwide. They also have a head start with quad-play offerings. Interesting, most consumers don't buy wireless (at least voice) based on their ability to bundle / save money - it's still about the network so WiMax won't likely provide that advantage. Ubiquitous, wireless broadband access with a single bill not tied to location or a single device is still anyone's territory to claim.

Challenges that lie ahead ... scale - is there enough in WiMax with all the global deployments to make it cost competitive? Is there a business case that makes sense? Like Public Wi-Fi, it will likely require many sources/streams. Can WiMax avoid some of the early difficulties that Wi-Fi experienced - difficult set up, poor interoperability among vendor products, interference or slow speeds due to competing user needs - if it is truly a wide open network that doesn't moderate any one individual's use in order to benefit all on the network. How well aligned are the partners' interests? Will consumers pay for devices? Will they pay for WiMax when Wi-Fi is so ubiquitous and inexpensive? Will we see some free, ad-sponsored access at the lower tier speeds? That would compete head on with Sprint and the cable companies offerings to some extent.

I wanted to get a voice plan (ca. 900 minutes) and a data plan. I also wanted to be able to use at least two phones. (Ok, yes, this story is about a GSM carrier.) Here are the problems I encountered:

1) The first thing I learned is that not all data plans (just data access) are equal. In my mind, a small screen phone with full browser vs. a medium-sized screen phone with limited browser (no email service) seemed comparable. Prices, however, were really different. Crazy.

2) They wanted me to pay them an activation fee for an account. I didn't want a subsidized phone. I was just a walk-in customer off the street who wanted a plan. They wanted me to pay them to become a customer. I asked them to waive the fee, but they wouldn't. I even waited around for a while (this works in the fruit markets in Morocco, and has been a successful tactic for me in the past at places such as Virgin Records, Best Buy, Good Guys, etc.) to see if they would change their minds. They didn't. I walked out. I have about five phones with service, and I'm not on contract (which I told them) so I had time.

So, I went home and searched online. I looked at places like Amazon.com, WireFly, Wireless Toyz, etc. Did a Google search on "Free phones from [wireless service provider]" Got a lot of results. I even found a few cases on Amazon.com where they would pay ME money to sign up and be a customer.

Then my brain shifted into overdrive.

If I sign up on Amazon, they'll give me the handset and $25 or so. I could apply the $25 towards the activiation fee (if it isn't already covered) Perhaps I could then sell the cell phone for another $10 at least to cover the remaining portion of the activation fee. I'm not sure if I'd qualify for SuperSaver shipping since they are paying me to take the phone, but I'm paying for service.

Wait, am I selling or buying a service plan?

Yesterday, Barack's campaign sent me an alert to let me know he'd be on The Daily Show. It was actually information I wanted. This evening, I received a text alert from Hillary's campaign letting me know she'd won PA about 10-15 minutes after her victory speech began - fairly timely. I was overseas during the Ohio primaries and I nearly went crazy trying to get results until the SMS finally arrived.

Promotion on Coke Zero bottle in Switzerland

Verizon Wireless Advertisement on University Ave. in Palo Alto

Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq: ADBE) today announced that Microsoft has licensed Adobe Flash Lite software, Adobe’s award-winning Flash Player runtime specifically designed for mobile devices, to enable web browsing of Flash content within the Internet Explorer Mobile browser in future versions of Windows Mobile devices. Microsoft has also licensed Adobe Reader LE software for viewing Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) documents including email attachments and web content. Both Adobe products will be made available to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide, who license Microsoft Windows Mobile software.

The deal with MS will help Adobe with distribution. They've just reached the half billion mark and sales have been accelerating over the past couple of years. Many - not all - MS devices have QWERTY keyboards and data plans (people get them for email + productivity applications) so together with adding Flash/Lite there is a confluence of factors that contribute towards consumers being more likely to use the browser and consume more content. Admob is already reporting that just under 20 percent of their ad requests come from smartphones – devices that do not represent 20 percent of the device market. These devices will be more attractive to both carriers and consumers - as well as developers.

Many good things will come from better Internet experiences on portable devices:

For media companies, there is a richer platform for content. Consumers with portable devices with rich browsers consume more content. More content consumption equals more page views and inventory to sell to advertisers. Cell phones already add time/space dimensions - device type, location, more time of day, behavior, etc. Rich media is another layer than will increase CPM's.

For advertisers, rich media offers more opportunities for engaging with their customers.

For carriers, more content consumption = more access subscriptions and share of a large ad revenue "pie"

And consumers have shown that they are more likely to browse on devices with full and rich browsing experience than on those with mini- or scaled-down- browsers.

Flash is one factor that contributes to a much richer browsing experience (and video) on mobile devices. Nearly one quarter of consumers surveyed by Jupiter Research say they'd be more likely to use web-based experiences on phones if the UI were better.

We know that portable media players (e.g., Apple iPhone) and cell phones with full, rich browser experiences see more traffic per device than cell phones with mini-browsers. Apple is saying they are seeing 71 percent of smartphone page views.

The top criteria for consumers when selecting a carrier are quality of coverage at home and while traveling.

Tannery in Fez

Abdul on his cell phone in the High Atlas Mountains

It’s hard to see, but there is a cell tower in this town in the distance.

Sahara near M’Hamid

Sand dunes near M’Hamid

A Kasbah near Ouarzazate

Habib’s camel sleeping after a long walk

Satellite Dishes on Rooftops in Fez

We visited a Kasbah near M’Hamid where electricity had just recently been added. They didn’t seem to be using it for lights or any appliances. There were no cars in the streets – only donkeys, camels and children on foot. The homes had no floors other than the clay or earth. There were minimal furnishings – some carpets, stools, and a few cooking utensils. We did, however find a satellite dish on the roof of a home.

Kasbah near M’Hamid with Electricity

Here is a few into a doorway in the village shown above where there are children watching a European soccer match.

Each of the three of us in our car had an iPod, and they had a hook up for the stereo so we were able to listen to some of our music. I showed Abdul and Rudouin the iPhone. The touch interface fascinated them - I think it was the first time they'd seen a device like this. Two things seemed to amaze them most - a) the amount of music on a single device and b) that it was actually a phone - they just couldn't seem to get their heads around the idea that it was a phone.

Our guides had cell phones, but the more basic type with a black/white screen. They primarily used their phones for voice calls and not text messages.

Rudouin and Abdul Checking Out the iPhone on the High Atlas