Looks like Apple and AT&T are hoping to step up the pace for iPhone 3G sales by bringing it to the mass of mass markets – WalMart. Apple’s been very selective with retail relationships for the iPhone. So far, it’s Apple and AT&T owned stores, and most recently, Best Buy. But realistically, who could resist the appeal of WalMart’s herculean distribution machine. Interestingly enough, WalMart got its dibs on the iPhone before AT&T’s retail agents – I’m sure they are “thrilled” about that. According to BGR, the iPhone 3G will be available on December 28th in both select WalMart stores and Sam’s Club stores. I guess Apple wanted all the holiday sales to themselves. No word yet if WalMart will offer discounted pricing.

The iPhone joins the G1 and other BlackBerry devices which are already sold at WalMart. Will the BlackBerry Storm join them? Looks like WalMart is turning into a regular smartphone "heaven." It demonstrates the further penetration of the smartphone into the consumer segment.

Verizon announced they are launching their own content delivery network (CDN) to “distribute content that Verizon contracts for directly with content owners like movie studios, TV networks, video rental sites and entertainment services…” The CDN is being phased in through a business relationship with Velocix, a U.K.-based digital asset-delivery network provider. Velocix will provide CDN services utilizing p2p technology to Verizon. "Verizon is now positioned to offer content owners and video distributors a competitive choice in delivering their services to our broadband customers," said Marjorie Hsu, Verizon vice president for network technology. "With our new delivery capability, content owners will be drawn to our networks, and our customers will be the beneficiaries of a broad range of compelling content services."

Verizon joins an increasingly crowded CDN landscape. CDN’s are growing as broadband and high capacity network owners aim to leverage their core networks for the growing business of content delivery to a plethora of network connected devices. By creating their own CDN capability, Verizon and others eliminate the need of contracting with other transport networks to distribute content, thus hopefully increasing margins. Companies like Verizon may be attractive to content owners, because in addition to robust CDNs, they also offer millions of existing broadband customer relationships. The first example of this Verizon collaboration is Starz Entertainment's Starz Play broadband entertainment service, which “provides unlimited online subscription access to more than 2,500 movies and video selections on demand, in addition to a live stream of the Starz premium pay TV movie channel.” It’s yet another example of broadband service providers trying to leverage core strengths for competitive advantage.

Municipal wireless networks were all the rage a couple years ago. Municipalities were encouraged to take broadband matters into their own hands and build and operate broadband wireless networks to help conquer the digital divide. Cities and towns, big and small, jumped in head first. Philadelphia and San Francisco led the way and hooked up with the likes of Earthlink and Google to showcase the model. Municipals were sold on the idea that these networks could be self sustaining, and even offer free access to citizens who couldn’t afford broadband otherwise. Reality soon set in, and the muni-wireless business model (if you want to call it that) crumbled. Earthlink exited the business entirely, and even paid some municipal partners millions to do so. MetroFi, a company built on the whole muni-wireless hype folded. Wi-Fi was questioned as being a suitable technology for these plans and broadband competitors were not thrilled at the prospect of governments as competitors. The concept spawned a lawsuit or two.

But is muni-wireless officially dead? Ars Technica looks into the possible rise from the ashes for muni-wireless, offering great insight into its current state. In fact, it may not be dead, but is certainly changed. Gone are the grandiose plans of the early days, replaced with more realistic goals. Networks are smaller and have more focused objectives. New vendors who offer “$10,000 mesh networks in a box” are bringing life to scaled down versions of earlier hype. What emerges may bring some clarity and long term stability to the muni-wireless concept.

Comcast continues its rollout of DOCSIS 3.0, or wideband as they call it. Pacific Northwest markets of Washington and Oregon will soon join the Twin Cities in Minnesota and certain Northeastern markets with the 50 Mbps capable broadband service. Approximately 1.8 million subscribers should gain access to the service in early December. Comcast has committed to wiring 20% of its footprint by the end of 2008. Comcast wideband tiers include the "Extreme 50" which offers 50 Mbps down/10 Mbps up for $139.95 per month. Next in line is the “Ultra" tier which offers 22 Mbps down/5 Mbps up for $62.95 per month. Comcast will also offer a wideband business package which includes the Extreme 50 tier and bundles firewall/anti-virus and a Microsoft powered unified communications package for $189.95/month. All tiers are best effort, and can be impacted by traffic on the network. Consumer services are also subject to Comcast’s 250 GB per month bandwidth cap. It's not quite clear how Comcast will integrate wideband into it's double and triple play bundles.

An added benefit for existing subscribers in new wideband markets is an uptick in speeds for existing cable modem subscribers at no additional cost. Existing 6 Mbps down/1 Mbps tiers are doubled to 12 Mbps down/2 Mbps up, while the 8 Mbps/1 Mbps tier is also doubled to 16 Mbps down/2 Mbps up. Their Powerboost service, which adds a quick boost during downloads, remains as well. The move to wideband creates competitive pressures on all broadband providers within and close to these new markets. As Comcast blankets a new wideband market with advertising, they create a potential “wideband itch” among consumers, raising broadband expectations for all providers, regardless of whether they actually compete with Comcast directly or not.

The TelcoTV Conference, which concluded last week, had its fair share of three screen convergence discussion. The idea of delivering a converged and integrated video/entertainment experience to the TV, PC, and mobile device is all the rage right now. But I walked away thinking, that at least in the U.S., three screen convergence still remains a dream, except to AT&T and Verizon. Those two seem to be the only companies in the U.S. with a legitimate shot for achieving its promise. They intend on leveraging it as a differentiation strategy over cable and DBS competitors. But where does that leave everyone else? Are all other carriers left on the three screen sideline, while AT&T and Verizon battle soon to be wireless enabled Cox, Comcast, and other cable companies? Forget the digital divide, are we now confronted with the “convergence divide?” Admittedly, TelcoTV’s own panel, “The Realities of Convergence for Small Carriers” created more questions than answers. But that’s not from lack of effort. The panel's outcome is illustrative of the marketplace reality – no clear convergence answers except for all but the largest of carriers. The remaining majority of telcoTV carriers lack the necessary ingredients – scale, a complementary wireless network, and deep enough pockets to pay for the complicated integration. Maybe the bigger question is, does anyone really care? Is this whole concept of content anywhere and on any device important to anyone but the marketers and analysts who promote it?

Let’s assume for a second, that it does “have some legs.” Seems to me, this is ripe territory for partnership. Why can’t Sprint and/or T-Mobile partner with the multitude of wireline IPTV carriers who are not AT&T or Verizon, and jointly develop and market a three screen converged product portfolio? Wouldn’t it make sense for all involved (assuming Sprint is interested, which they may not be, given their existing efforts with the cable industry)? The combined effort would allow Sprint/T-Mobile to more effectively compete with AT&T and Verizon’s three screen push. The same could be said for the existing smaller IPTV providers who will want to differentiate themselves from their video competitors (or maybe keep up with them). There is certainly enough overlap between Sprint/T-Mobile footprints and the IPTV operators who lack a wireless network. Unfortunately, partnering for wireless service has had mixed success. There are a few success stories out there, but most wireline carriers who are anxious to partner with wireless carriers find themselves looking for an elusive dancing partner. The MVNO model hasn’t quite panned out. Perhaps adding video to the mix will make up for the apparent lack of interest in developing wide scale win-win mobile wireless partnerships.

I realize I’m over simplifying the partnership process. The reality is it’s quite complicated and often messy. Adding video to the mix may not even be viable, given the system integration challenges among hundreds of different IPTV provider networks. The business model hasn’t historically been pretty either. There’s a reason why we haven’t seen a great model emerge, where wireline carriers who lack spectrum and a wireless network, partner with an existing wireless carrier to offer wireless services. And do so in a fashion where they can both make a little money at it, while maintaining respective ownership and control of the customer experience (although there are some promising partnerships on the horizon, including Crossroads Wireless). It’s one of those things that make perfect logical sense on paper, but reality proves otherwise. It's not an encouraging picture for three screen convergence evangelists.

Just when you thought broadband over powerline was officially dead, here comes IBM to revive it. IBM is partnering with International Broadband Electric Communications Inc. (IBEC) to target the 900 or so rural electric cooperatives with a BPL solution. IBEC is a BPL solution provider, and under the terms of the IBM agreement, IBM will “install Broadband over Power Line (BPL) networks at electric cooperatives throughout the eastern US.” IBEC provides the equipment, as well as acts as the ISP for the electric cooperatives who select the solution. IBEC currently currently has 1,400 BPL customers.

According to an Associated Press article, the first IBEC identified buildout will cost $70 million to complete and covers 340,000 homes in Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Eighty-six percent of the population in the identified markets does not currently have access to cable or DSL broadband. IBEC expects the project to take two years to complete. They plan to offer a basic broadband service for about $30/month. Apparently BPL lives on. What are the odds that this latest BPL attempt will become reality?

The TelcoTV Conference kicked off this morning with keynote addresses from both AT&T and Verizon. Dan York, Executive Vice President of Content for AT&T and John Harrobin, Senior Vice President for Marketing and Digital Media for Verizon both offered glimpses into their respective company’s three screen entertainment strategy. A recurring theme throughout both presentations was that telcos are reinventing the television experience, and doing so more effectively than their cable competitors. “Telcos are at the center of reinventing TV,” said Harrobin. “Telcos are best positioned to mine content assets and maximize value,” through the integration of mobile, broadband and TV, and are executing that vision better than cable, said Harrobin.

“We’re redefining ourselves as a communications and entertainment company,” said York. “But entertainment is more than just video,” he said. York painted a picture where entertainment involves integrating all services and platforms with an entertainment portfolio. “Putting entertainment in the bundle is not enough,” said York. “This goes beyond putting three services on one bill.” The emphasis of telcos beating cable at their own game couldn’t have been louder. I counted five instances of “more than cable” references in York’s 30 minute speech alone. Harrobin alluded to the “death of linear television” and suggested that telcos are better positioned to leverage the future of television which will be more focused on VOD and web integrated video experiences. “The magic happens when we connect the three platforms of mobile, broadband and TV,” he said.

Despite the bravado and hype of York and Harrobin’s comments, there is an argument to be made for their hypothesis. TelcoTV operators are being more innovative with video and are executing a better three screen strategy than their cable and DBS competitors. But realistically, what choice do they have? They have to be more innovative and offer a more compelling mix of features to compete with well entrenched cable and DBS competitors. The same could be said for cable’s assault on telco’s core service – voice. Cable is offering more innovative voice offerings than their entrenched telco competitors. It’s a factor of the marketplace. Competition is always a catalyst for innovation.

The iPhone recently dethroned the BlackBerry as the number one selling smartphone in the U.S. RIM hopes to reverse the trend with the introduction of the BlackBerry Storm, which is their keyboardless touch phone answer to the iPhone. The phone will be exclusive to Verizon, which has recently stepped up their “anticipatory” marketing efforts. The wait may not be much longer. BGR is reporting that Verizon will launch the storm on November 24th for $199 (requires a two year subscription), just in time for the holiday season. When will the lines begin to form?