So why did the number of pay-TV subscribers increase in just the last three months?

They didn’t grow much — a modest 422,000 subscribers, for a very modest 0.2 percent growth rate — but they still grew.

Those numbers come from Bernstein Research’s Craig Moffett, a longtime skeptic that “cord-cutting” is a real and pervasive problem for the cable guys (at least for now). It’s not the first time he’s shown evidence of barely-there growth for cable TV — last quarter, for instance, he gathered similar numbers.

But his numbers do conflict with other reports that show evidence of cord-cutting. Earlier this month, for instance, Nielsen said that pay-TV subscribers had shrunk by 1.5 million in 2011.

The easiest way to reconcile Moffett’s numbers with other reports is to note that almost all of the analyst’s data comes from the publicly traded pay-TV providers themselves — like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — in the reports they offer up to shareholders. Most of the other stuff you’re seeing comes from polls and surveys.

Here’s his data. You’ll need to click the image to enlarge it:

But what about all of you folks who tell me, over and over, that you’ve ditched cable for some kind of combo of Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV, or even pirate streams? Surely I’ll hear from some of you again, just as soon as I publish this.

And I believe you folks, too. I can certainly imagine many scenarios where tech-savvy people — and even not-that-tech-savvy people — are able to satisfy their video urges without paying for a TV subscription. But my operating theory, for now, remains my vegan analogy: “They’re real, and they’re out there. They’re particularly notable in certain places like New York, the Bay Area and college towns. And they over-index at certain Web gathering places, like this one. But McDonald’s sales are still chugging along.”

But if it doesn’t?

Then things start looking ugly. Really ugly, says Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett.

Moffett on Monday slapped an “underperform” rating on Sprint’s shares, warning that the debt-laden company could end up filing for bankruptcy if its Network Vision upgrade doesn’t deliver the compelling next-generation wireless offering it needs.

“We believe an LTE iPhone will likely be badly disadvantaged on Sprint’s network, potentially impairing sales … at a time when Sprint is subject to a punishing take-or-pay deal with Apple,” Moffett said in a note to clients. “The problem is 4G. Sprint doesn’t have enough free-and-clear spectrum on which to launch a competitive LTE network, and it doesn’t have the money to clear spectrum that’s already in use.”

In other words, Sprint’s competitiveness may well be further eroded when LTE reaches widespread adoption.

Moffett sees the company’s fate playing out in one of two ways. The first: “The company successfully navigates its complicated Network Vision upgrade, stabilizes Clearwire’s financial position, and delivers a compelling 4G product.”

The second is quite a bit more dismal: “Some combination of Sprint’s gargantuan take-or-pay contract with Apple, a hobbled 4G offering, and a stupendous debt burden bring the company to its knees.”

So, is Sprint headed for bankruptcy? Not necessarily. “To be clear, we are not predicting a Sprint bankruptcy,” Moffett said. “We are merely acknowledging that it is a very legitimate risk. And notwithstanding a recent rally in Sprint shares, we believe that risk is rising.”

Google has asked federal regulators for permission to sell pay TV in Kansas City, where it has been working on a broadband/fiber buildout, and the WSJ thinks it could launch in a couple months.

It would be awesome if Google could use this as an opportunity to break up the cable bundle, and let people buy individual channels instead of big expensive blocks of programming they mostly ignore.

But that’s very unlikely to happen, because the cable programmers love the bundle, and don’t have any incentive to break it up (see: Viacom’s Philippe Dauman and ESPN’s John Skipper last month at Dive Into Media). If Google wants cable TV programming, it’s going to have to play by cable TV’s rules.

So what can Google offer that will make someone switch from Time Warner Cable, which dominates the pay TV business in Kansas City?

Very high-speed Internet access, for starters. And perhaps Larry Page will figure it’s worth his while to offer the service at an extremely low margin, because the whole project is a very expensive test, anyway.

Beyond that, here are some guesses/predictions from Bernstein Research analysts Carlos Kirjner and Craig Moffett, who have a pretty good handle on this stuff. They’re the ones who predicted on Tuesday that Google would file for cable licenses “very soon.” This prognostication comes from that same note:

DVR in the Cloud: “We would expect Google to store (and make available to consumers) the content across all or most TV channels it will provide, making available to users not just the live stream but also past content going back several days or weeks, if not longer. With the addition of good search and discovery and user interface capabilities, this would make DVRs obsolete.”

TV Where You Want It: “We would expect Google to offer access to something like ‘Cloud TV,’ described above, including the live TV stream, across multiple devices, such as computers, tablets and handsets.”

A Programming Guide That Doesn’t Suck: “It is not very hard to imagine a much better user interface than the one currently provided by the MSOs and satellite TV providers,” presumably along the lines of what they’ve been showing off with the revamped Google TV.

Again, the big caveat here is that none of this happens unless the cable programmers play along. And while none of the stuff described above seems truly mind-blowing, some of it — like live mobile streaming — will stil require programmers to give Google capabilities they haven’t given to heavyweights like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

And even though the cable programmers often tangle with the cable providers, they’re at least comfortable with them in general. Google, though, still scares the bejesus out of lots of traditional media companies, so I’m not sure how many of them will play along.

One pretty good bet: Google’s foray into cable TV won’t include anything from Viacom, since the cable giant is still suing Google in the YouTube copyright case. So no Snooki for Kansas City.

[Shutterstock/Dwight Smith]

Let’s take another peek, courtesy of SNL Kagan and Barclays analyst Anthony DiClemente, who has an updated list of wholesale prices by channel* (the list on the right is for ad rates, which we can ignore for the purposes of this story):

Takeaway from today’s chart: Nothing has really changed — you’re still paying a lot for sports, and you’re paying a lot for ESPN.

That’s why Disney’s sports channel is the most valuable asset on your cable dial. And it’s also why you’ve been hearing increasing grumbling — from both customers and ESPN’s non-sports cable competitors — about ESPN’s drag on your cable bill. (We’ll talk to new ESPN boss John Skipper about this topic next week at Dive Into Media.)

As I’ve noted before, the odds are that this doesn’t change anytime soon: Disney and ESPN can charge that much because the cable guys, like Comcast, think the programming is worth it to their customer base. And they’re signing up long-term deals that will keep that fee structure in place for the next decade.

But there is a chance that a “virtual” cable operator, using the Web, decides to offer a package that doesn’t include ESPN. They could either use that unspent money to lower customers’ bills, or plow it into other programming.

Again, this will also mean that subscribers couldn’t get any Disney programming, because Bob Iger has zero interest in splitting up the bundle. But I know of a few folks who have at least contemplated the idea.

So what about that “over the top” option, anyway? Some industry observers, like BTIG’s Rich Greenfield, are sure that someone — Apple, Google, Verizon, who knows — will offer one this year. Today, Bernstein’s Craig Moffett has a long essay describing why that won’t happen for a long time, if ever. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said something similar this week, alluding to the fact that Microsoft has reportedly bailed on its Web TV subscription plans.

*The 2012 chart omits regional cable channels, which is why Fox Sports Net has disappeared in the new chart. I don’t know why the new one includes outliers like 3net, a 3-D channel that isn’t widely available (and/or relevant, as best I can tell).

[Image: ESPN]

But before you envision the rollout of a nationwide Google pay TV service, consider: Building out and maintaining a cable TV (and broadband) service is enormously time-consuming, expensive and messy.

Think, for example, of all those angry/confused service inquiries your local cable guy has to deal with. And recall that last year, when Google tried to sell its own line of smartphones, it was hoping to get by without setting up a customer service operation that gave buyers the ability to talk to a real live human.

Verizon spent some $23 billion on its FiOS rollout, and by the time it stalled out last year, it still wasn’t clear if it was a good idea for the telco to build out a cable/broadband service. So why does Larry Page think it makes sense for him?

He doesn’t, according to Sanford Bernstein analysts Craig Moffett and Carlos Kirjner in a note this morning. Instead, they argue, Page and Google have to be thinking about Kansas City as an R&D experiment meant to accomplish three things:

First, it helps Google (slightly) on the public policy front as it promotes the agenda of faster broadband, and it potentially adds to their status in promoting net neutrality. Faster broadband means more Internet usage, more searches, and more ads. Of course, the real regulatory game is a few orders of magnitude more sophisticated, but every little arrow in the quiver helps.

Second, it is a laboratory for Google to learn about technology and consumer behavior, ranging from the impact of higher speed access on Internet usage to the potential and economics of different ad formats and models, on different platforms, particularly when it comes to advertising associated with video and TV.

Third, it is an opportunity for Google to learn about the economics of deploying and running infrastructure. And learn they will…

Analysts like to pull their punches, but Moffett and Kirjner are crystal clear here: There’s no way they think Google becomes the “world’s biggest cable company” or anything like that.

Just to beat this into the ground, here’s another excerpt from their report (well worth reading the whole thing) where they spell out just how ugly the economics of this kind of venture would be:

From a [return on invested capital]-based perspective, the difference between Google’s current business model and that of a facilities-based wireline service provider like Verizon could not be starker. In 2011, we expect Google to post an ROIC of 56%, or 38% when including goodwill. In 2010, Verizon’s wireline segment (which includes FiOS) sported an ROIC excluding goodwill and “one-time items” of… wait for it… just 1.6%. Including goodwill and similar intangible, and smoothed one-timers, it was -1.0%.

Still. It’s quite obvious that something has changed in Google’s thinking over the years.

The company that strove to stay away from anything approaching the content business has now leapt in with both feet. See, for example: Google Music, Google Books, YouTube, and YouTube’s new “channels” project. And recall that Google just made a plus-sized bid for Hulu.

So the notion that Google is now willing to consider even testing out life as a cable TV service is still telling. As is the notion, buried lower in the Journal piece, that Google has floated the idea of turning YouTube into an “over the top” cable service, though that doesn’t seem like it’s on the table right now.

Android boss Andy Rubin even spelled it out at the AsiaD conference in Hong Kong last month: “Google is in the very, very early phases of adding consumer products to our portfolio.” So even if that doesn’t mean it’s ready to become a cable guy, it’s still going to evolve into something much broader than a search company.

Fifteen years after their initial Comcast investment, Microsoft’s vision of a Windows-based gateway to the television still hasn’t materialized. Now it is Google’s turn to storm the fortress. And, like Microsoft before them, they have decided to do it from the inside.

Bernstein Research’s Craig Moffett, in a note (reg. required) savaging the notion that buying Motorola will allow Google to disrupt the TV business. Moffett does see a role for Google in helping cable operators measure and target TV advertising, though. For a less pithy take, read AllThingsD.

Moffett expects to see the cable guys like Comcast and Time Warner Cable lose a total of more than 300,000 subscribers, while the satellite TV companies may eke out about 70,000 new customers.

Those results could be balanced out by growth from the TV services offered by AT&T and Verizon, who have added 412,000 new subscribers. And overall pay TV numbers could end up positive for the quarter, but Moffett says that’s no sure bet at all: “Our conviction in a positive aggregate number is all but zero.”

Moffett is quite skeptical that pay-TV customers are actually cutting the cord and satisfying their TV needs with Netflix, Hulu, etc. For quite some time he’s been arguing that pay TV growth is a function of new household formations — and since there’s none of the latter, there can’t be any of the former.

Again, note that Reed Hastings and the rest of the Netflixers have been diligently announcing that they don’t believe there’s cord-cutting either — and if there is, they’re certainly not contributing it. But there are a lot of people who will see the next few weeks’ numbers as evidence that cord-cutting is, indeed, for real.

Posting fourth-quarter earnings this morning, Sprint said it added 1.1 million total wireless subscribers, 58,000 of them two-year contract customers. Quite a milestone for a company that hasn’t seen a gain in postpaid subscribers in 13 quarters and a sign that Sprint may finally be turning a corner. Another good sign: Postpaid churn fell to 1.86 percent from 2.11 percent in the third quarter, and prepaid churn fell to 4.93 percent from 5.32 percent. And another: For the quarter, Sprint added almost 1.1 million wireless subscribers, its best showing in nearly five years.

All welcome news, even if Sprint is still losing money. The company reported a fourth-quarter loss of $929 million, or 31 cents a share, on revenue of $8.3 billion, up from $7.9 billion a year ago. Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters most recently forecast a loss of 30 cents a share on $8.15 billion in revenue. Said Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, “Sprint CEO Dan Hesse might be forgiven for the temptation to hang a “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier that is Sprint. To his credit, he expressly declined to do so. Still, the company has at last achieved post-paid and total subscriber growth, customer service levels have improved, churn rates have been brought under control, and revenues were up.”

At $4.41, Sprint shares are up 1.15 percent in early trading as I write this.

That’s because the cable guys always raise their prices, year after year after year. It’s what they do. And the notion that some tech-savvy customers may be dropping their subscriptions in favor of some sort of Hulu/iTunes/Netflix broadband combo isn’t scaring them off.

The slightly less bad news is that it seems as if the price hike will be smaller than previous years’. But it will still be a hike. Bernstein Research’s Craig Moffett shows you how much more you can expect to pay depending on which company sells you your TV shows.

There are some caveats here. Because Moffett’s sample size is relatively small for Comcast and Time Warner Cable, those numbers could end up moving around. And the Dish Network hike looks a little bit outsized because the company has promised it will freeze rates for the two following years.

But the main takeaway doesn’t change: None of this looks like an industry convinced its customers are really heading out the door, or are about to in the next few years.

Everyone has something to say about today’s speech by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on the subject of net neutrality (video below). Having been blocked in the courts from imposing sanctions on Comcast for throttling users of BitTorrent, the commission has been spinning its wheels trying to find a way to nudge the broadband industry in a direction toward treating all Internet content fairly.

To Genachowski and network neutrality proponents, a bit is a bit is a bit, and your broadband service provider should have nothing to say in blocking you from using the services and applications that you choose and saying what you want to say so long as you’re not breaking any laws.

It makes sense until you hear rebuttals from the providers who spend billions to build the networks, arguing that they should have some right to protect their networks from cases where the heaviest users–video-downloading BitTorrent users are the classic example–can degrade the experience of other users. Think of it as “My network, my rules.”

Without the legal authority to force net neutrality on the providers, Genachowski has circulated draft rules that would instead require them to disclose what they intend to throttle and why, so that consumers can more intelligently choose whom they’re going to do business with. If there are going to be rules, put them on a sign where all can see them before walking in the door, he’s saying here.

Gone is the talk of reclassifying broadband, which some had described as a sort of “nuclear option” that would potentially give the FCC the authority to force net neutrality on the carriers, and would have probably led to more pointless, expensive lawsuits.

The big shift came when Genachowski said he’d be open to “business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.”

That means broadband providers can start creating variable price plans under which consumers will pay more for using more.

Oh, and the wireless Internet? It’s too early in its lifetime to impose any rules on it. The FCC, he said, “would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate.”

The reactions have been predictable:

It’s “not perfect,” but it’s reasonable, says Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. If the order changes materially, however, the group reserves the right to fight it.

It’s a step in the right direction but needs to be “strengthened,” says Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C., public interest group.

Tyrone Brown of the Media Access Project says he is “very disappointed.” By taking the reclassification option off the table, the FCC loses a key piece of the legal authority it would otherwise need to require service providers to extend broadband service to people who don’t currently have access, which has been a key objective of the Obama administration.

Josh Silver, president of FreePress, another policy organization that advocates for net neutrality, called it “fake Net Neutrality” and said that “Genachowski is taking the same exact approach to splitting the open Internet into fast and slow lanes that Verizon and Google proposed last summer.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker essentially promised to vote against the proposal when it comes before the commission on Dec. 21. Only Congress, Baker said, should decide if the Internet is to be regulated. Unlikely with the GOP taking control of the House in less than a month. “We don’t have authority to act,” he said.

After all that: Comcast stock is up 4 percent today; Verizon shares up one percent; Time-Warner shares are up more than two percent; Cablevision shares are up about 1.5 percent. This news will be a boon to broadband providers, says Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note issued today.

Usage-based broadband plans are probably soon to follow, which would be good for business because consumers would probably embrace them. One question for all the critics: Would that be so bad?

Here’s the video of the speech:

Good thing AT&T Wireless CEO Ralph de la Vega is so certain the end of the carrier’s iPhone exclusivity deal doesn’t portend a mass subscriber exodus, otherwise you might look at AT&T’s latest earnings and the degree to which they were driven by the device and (cough) worry.

Reporting third quarter financials largely in line with Wall Street’s forecasts, AT&T said today it activated 5.2 million iPhones in the quarter–62 percent more than the record 3.2 million it activated earlier this year. Odd then that the device is notably absent from the “Mobile Broadband Leadership” slide in AT&T’s investor presentation. A passive-aggressive jab back at that “rumored” Verizon deal, perhaps?

Anyway…

The company posted a profit of 55 cents per share, up 3.8 percent from the 53 cents per share it managed in the third quarter of 2009 and in line with what analysts had been expecting. Revenue rose to $31.58 billion from $30.73 billion in the same period a year earlier and slightly exceeded the average analyst expectation of $31.25 billion.

So a strong quarter, but one overshadowed by that long-rumored loss of iPhone exclusivity. As Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett observed in a note to investors this morning, the heavy subsidies AT&T offers for the iPhone cut deeply into its bottom line.

“In anticipation of losing exclusivity, AT&T has rapidly served up its own inoculation–a massive campaign to upgrade existing iPhone subscribers to new two year contracts that will lock them in as new options emerge,” he wrote. “The cost of this strategy, of course, is subsidies, and that cost was front and center in AT&T’s 3Q results. In total, Wireless margins were light, but Wireline cost cutting was better-than-expected, and overall earnings were therefore in line at $0.55.”

He didn’t name any of them, but it’s a safe bet that at least one of the devices to which he referred is Apple’s next-generation iPhone, perhaps the last for which AT&T will have an exclusive.

As much as the debut of that device bodes well for the AT&T (T), the carrier’s dependency on it as a profit driver is becoming a worrisome vulnerability.

Consider this: In its first quarter, AT&T activated 2.7 million Apple iPhones. A third of those, about 891,000, were purchased by new subscribers. Which means, as Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett observed today, that the iPhone drove about 174 percent of AT&T’s post-paid net additions (the company had about 512,000 post-paid net adds).

That’s an astonishing percentage. But what would AT&T’s post-paid numbers look like if the company loses iPhone exclusivity and Verizon (VZ) begins selling the device, as some believe it soon might?

My guess: They would be quite a bit smaller. And that’s the concern some analysts are voicing today. As Moffett wrote in a note to clients this morning, “The question of what AT&T will do if and when they lose iPhone exclusivity is hard to escape.” Indeed. By some estimates nearly a third of AT&T’s post-paid customers are sticking with the company primarily because of iPhone exclusivity.

But ultimately, what can AT&T do? Not much, unless it manages to score a similar exclusivity deal on another device that rivals the iPhone in popularity. Other than that? Gird itself for the inevitable blow, I suppose. Continue to improve its network, do its best to hold on to the iPhone owners it has and continue signing up new ones.

The truth is that AT&T has known all along that its exclusive relationship with Apple (AAPL) would change someday and has undoubtedly already factored this into its plans.

As Linder told Reuters today, “…at some point [Apple] will, as they have in other countries, make the decision to broaden [iPhone] distribution and move to a non-exclusive arrangement. When that occurs at some point, I fully expect we’ll continue to be a good partner with them, and continue to carry a full range of Apple devices.”

“It is true that ‘Congress gave the [Commission] broad and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly evolving communications technologies,’” the three-judge panel wrote in its order (full text below). “It is also true that ‘[t]he Internet is such a technology,’ indeed, ‘arguably the most important innovation in communications in a generation.’

“Yet notwithstanding the ‘difficult regulatory problem of rapid technological change’ posed by the communications industry, ‘the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer…Commission authority.’ …The Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any ‘statutorily mandated responsibility.’”

In other words, as much as the FCC would like to tell Comcast (CMCSA) how to manage its network, it cannot do so without an explicit mandate from Congress.

This is a nasty blow to the FCC’s effort to establish a formal set of Net neutrality rules and to its National Broadband Plan. The FCC can’t really regulate broadband without clear authority over the companies that provide it.

That said, the FCC does have a few options going forward, as Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett explained in a research note to clients this morning.

“Broadly speaking, the FCC has three options. First, the FCC can go to Congress and request the necessary authority. Second, it can go to Congress and request net neutrality legislation. Or third, the FCC can reclassify broadband to bring it under FCC jurisdiction. This third option has been called by some ‘the nuclear option.’”

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director for The Media Access Project, the nuclear option may be the best bet.

“While we are, to put it mildly, unhappy about this decision, the FCC’s choices are not quite as bleak as you suggest,” Schwartzman told me. “It has the option of classifying broadband as a Title II service, which was what it did until 2005. While this, too, will be subjected to the inevitable court appeals, many of us think that this will be sustained, and we’ve asked the FCC to do this. This is especially important as legislation would take a very long time to be enacted.”

Full Text Comcast vs FCC Federal Court Ruling

Consider this scenario from Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett.

Imagine a portable set top box, but with its own killer screen. When in the home, it would be docked in a cradle connected to iTunes via a wired broadband pipe. Navigation of programming guides and iTunes listings would occur on the iPad, using an intuitive touch interface. Output would go directly to the wide-screen TV on the wall…until you left the house. Then, you’d simply pop the device out of its cradle and take it with you. And in the process, you’d be taking your TV with you as well. A 3G (and eventually 4G) wireless connection would allow you to keep watching live TV in the back of the car or cab. Once you got on the airplane you could choose from a library of your favorite shows saved on your DVR…which also happens to be a half-inch thick ergonomically gorgeous high definition tilt-sensitive screen that fits comfortably in your hands.

A dockable, portable set-top box with LED-backlit widescreen display? Seems a bit of a stretch at this point. And it would be enormously bandwidth-intensive. But it’s not entirely inconceivable, is it?

UPDATE: Mark Sigal recently made a similar observation over at O’Reilly Radar, using MLB’s iPad app as an example:

Similarly, MLB (Major League Baseball) showcased their MLB app, which overlays graphics, information feeds, video clips and live game programming in a way that is simultaneously immersive, interactive and highly entertaining. It is both suggestive of a media-centric killer app for the IPad and a bellwether for the future of TV Anywhere, yet another reason that I believe Apple’s ambitions with respect to Apple TV remain very much alive.

It remains to be seen whether Apple (AAPL) has created an entirely new computing category with the iPad. But at the very least, analysts seem to believe the company has created an enduring growth engine.

• Charlie Wolf, Needham & Company
  “Because Apple is defining a new category of devices, sales of the iPad are likely to ramp slowly. But the $500 starting price point is low enough to attract a sizable portion of the early adopter crowd, consisting of iPhone and iPod owners. It’s noteworthy that the iPad’s initial price is below the iPhone’s initial price and not much higher than the price of the first iPod, introduced in 2001. Our best guess at this time is the Apple could sell four million iPads in its initial year on the market, which translates into at least $2 billion of revenue.”
• Gene Munster, Piper Jaffray
  “Originally we were estimating sales of 2m units in the first calendar year at a price point of $600-$800. With the actual $499/$629 price point, we believe Apple will sell 3m-4m units in the first 12 months….After using the iPad, we believe it will cannibalize iPod touch sales, but not Mac sales. The gadget is a premium mobile device, not a computer; as such, we see some iPod touch buyers stepping up to the iPad, but consumers looking for an affordable portable computer will likely stick with the MacBook lineup.”
• James McQuivey, Forrester
  “The iPad is a grown up iPod Touch. Apple has taken the safe route of offering its existing customers an option that goes beyond today’s iPod Touch in size and capability, but it has not offered a new category of devices that tackles the 5-6 hours of media we each consume every day. With no integrated social media for sharing photos, recommending books, and sharing home video, the iPad misses a big piece of what makes media so powerful. As it stands, by relying on the App Store as the single most important draw of the device besides its attractiveness, the iPod Touch is a significant step toward making tablets respectable. But making tablets respectable should have been the least of Apple’s ambitions. It had (and still has) the opportunity to create a new media experience in consumers’ lives. As it stands, a quick, well-structured response from Amazon in the next version of Kindle could easily be a contender here. That’s why I say that the iPad is priced lower than expected because it is less revolutionary than expected.”
• Mike Abramsky, RBC
  “Like the first iPod and iPhone, uptake may in time surprise as future versions improve and costs decline. The iPad’s intuitiveness and simplicity at key tasks (browsing, email, media, watching videos, games, reading, working) may appeal to consumers for whom existing PC experiences are intimidating, inadequate, delivering 90%+ of the features of traditional PCs with less complexity than traditional PCs. Uptake however may require in-store demos to truly experience the richness of iPad’s experience.”
• Tavis McCourt, Morgan Keegan
  “The iPad has been long anticipated so we are not shocked by the lack of stock movement. Given the price point, we suspect initial sales will be strong (this is Apple, and there are many enthusiasts), and then simmer down a bit after a few months. The ultimate success of a new product category will be the unique apps developed for this device, and with the SDK just going out today, it is hard to know how impressive they will be. However, the good news is that aside from maybe modest iPod Touch cannibalization, we doubt that the iPad will cannibalize any revenues from the massive margin pools within the iPhone and Mac product categories.”
• Craig Moffett, Bernstein Research
  “Longer term, the iPad offers the potential to redefine the boundaries between print and video, turning formerly passive media into active ones, and in the process making what are currently low bandwidth applications (say, reading a newspaper) become much more bandwidth intensive (e.g. by embedding video rather than still pictures).”
• Mark Moskowitz, J.P. Morgan
  “iPad is not for everyone, and the first-generation product is sure to have its critics given the prelaunch buzz. In our view, the iPad is a smart, nimble device for heavy content users–Apple’s core customer. iPad is a hybrid of sorts, marrying select benefits of the smartphone and notebook. We expect the market to be small at first, but the gamer and education verticals should construct a meaningful growth ramp longer term.”

Quite a change from the profit of $1.24 billion, or 43 cents a share, the carrier reported in the quarter a year ago.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters (TRI) had been expecting earnings of 54 cents a share on $27.33 billion in revenue.

Revenue from Verizon’s (VZ) wireline services declined 3.9 percent to $11.5 billion. But data revenue rose 31 percent, to $16 billion. And wireless data revenue accounted for 32 percent of all service revenue, up from 26.5 percent a year earlier.

“Today’s 4Q results were eye-opening, if only because of the magnitude of the divergence,” Bernstein analyst Craig Moffet said in a research note issued after earnings. “Amidst an aggressive campaign to reinforce their positioning as the best-in-class network, and no doubt aided by AT&T’s well-publicized network travails, Verizon Wireless pulled away, with a solid 1.15M subscriber gain in post-paid and, more surprisingly, a huge opportunistic 1.0M subscriber gain in wholesale.”

But, Moffett cautioned, “…Wireline results were at least as weak as Wireless was strong, and Wireline remains the company’s center of gravity. Notable in the Wireline results were a worsening of trends in the legacy copper business and–perhaps worse–a serious miss in the growth of their FiOS business as well….Overall, we think the results must be judged as something of a disappointment.”

Why? Do they expect the tablet to be Wi-Fi-only like the iPod touch? That would certainly make things a lot easier for the carriers.

No. Most analysts I spoke to said the probability that Apple’s new offering will support mobile broadband is quite high. “I can’t imagine it not having it,” Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster told me.

There are other good reasons not to fear the tablet as a bandwidth hog. First, the device will presumably rely heavily on Wi-Fi to off-load wireless traffic onto the wireline network, the assumption being that it will be used most often in locations with Wi-Fi access–homes, schools, libraries, cafes and whatnot. Moreover, a mobile broadband plan will likely be optional.

Second, despite all the hype and hoopla, initial unit sales of an Apple (AAPL) tablet are likely to be too low to have much of an impact.

As Munster told me: “…turn the clock back and look at the iPhone and the first year Apple sold 5.5 million units in the US and the ASP was $475. At that time there were no issues with AT&T’s network. The issues began occurring last year, right around the time we saw the hockey stick in iPhone adoption.”

Regarding the tablet, Munster says, “If this device is $800-$1000, I think adoption is going to be much lower than the hype would lead you to believe. So the bottom like is this: on a per-unit basis it might put a lot of stress on the network, but there will be too few of them on the street to collectively have a real negative impact.”

Presumably, that will give the carrier, whatever company that may be, time to build out in anticipation of increased adoption. A good thing, since a tablet may well pose unique network challenges, particularly if it is used as a streaming video viewer, says Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.

“Streaming video is uniquely demanding traffic, as it is both bandwidth intensive AND latency sensitive,” Moffett explained. “That’s a recipe for disaster. For that reason, it’s unlikely that carriers would invite that type of usage. A large screen tablet would likely rely heavily on download-to-watch-later to sidestep the latency problem, and would almost certainly provide incentives to shift the most bandwidth-intensive applications to the wired network via Wi-Fi.”

But that’s a future scenario. “I don’t see this as a device that will in the next 12 months inspire people to save their money to buy it, the way they have with the iPhone,” says Munster, who sees Apple selling about 1.4 million tablets in calendar year 2010, assuming it ships in March.

“Certainly, it will take off in due time–this is the future of publishing,” Munster concludes, “but it takes 2-3 years for these things to really get going.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Apple Announces Jan. 27 Special Event: “Come See Our Latest Creation”
• Major Apple Product Announcement Set for Wednesday, Jan. 27
• Apple Pitching Tablet to Publishing Industry; Spring Launch Expected
• Time (Finally) for the Tablet? Apple Developers Supersizing Their Apps for January Event.
• The Apple Tablet Is Delayed? So What?
• $1.9 Billion in Capex? What’s Apple Planning?
• Apple’s Tablet: Read Different?
• Imaginary Demand for Mythical Apple Tablet Exceeds All Estimates
• Apple Tablet Coming to AT&T?
• New From Piper Jaffray Analyst Gene Munster: The Apple iPad
• Rumored Apple Netbook Actually an E-Book?
• iTablet: Apple’s Killer App for Higher Ed
• iFugly

Recent price cuts by AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) in the post-paid market, and Metro PCS (PCS) in the pre-paid market, “tighten a vise that leases Sprint once again stuck in the middle,” he writes in a research note. He notes that the company’s cost structure “is poorly suited for the current round of wireless price wars,” with “a huge gap between Sprint’s per-subscriber monthly costs versus those of its peers.” He says the company’s steady-state per-subscriber monthly cost is close to $36, compared with $32 at T-Mobile, $29 at AT&T and $28 at Verizon, with Leap (LEAP) and Metro PCs lower still.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

In its second quarter–the first with the Pre in its lineup–Sprint (S) lost 991,000 postpaid subscribers. And in its third, reported yesterday, its lost 801,000. So subscriber loss, while unquestionably gruesome, is diminishing.

How much of this is due to Palm’s (PALM) Pre? Not that much, says CL King & Associates analyst Lawrence Harris, who believes the Pre had only a moderate impact on Sprint’s postpaid subscriber base.

“Within postpaid, the number of CDMA-only subscriber losses was about 100,000 in the September quarter, compared to the 200,000 in the June quarter,” Harris wrote in a research note to clients. “At Sprint, the Palm Pre is a CDMA-only postpaid device. The number of Sprint postpaid subscribers upgrading their handsets was slightly higher in the September quarter than in the June quarter at just over 2.0 million.”

According to Harris, “This number provides some indication of the available market for all high-end devices at Sprint. In Palm’s August quarter, 85% of the company’s sales went to Sprint. Given the absence of growth in Sprint’s CDMA postpaid category, it appears likely that most of the Palm Pre sales went to existing Sprint subscribers as opposed to winning customers from other carriers.”

That would seem to be the case. Sprint rivals AT&T (T) and Verizon Wireless (VZ) each added subscribers during the second quarter–1.4 million and 1.1 million, respectively. So if the Pre did anything for Sprint, it helped to stem CDMA postpaid losses a bit.

And that’s something, right? After all, there’s no panacea for Sprint’s affliction–well, perhaps there is, but it’s locked up in an exclusivity agreement with AT&T (T). Still, when Sprint last reported earnings, CEO Dan Hesse said the carrier expected to sign up more new customers as the Pre gained wider distribution through retail outlets like Best Buy (BBY) and RadioShack. And that doesn’t really seemed to have happened. Perhaps next quarter after Sprint launches the Pre’s not-quite-cheaper sibling, the Pixi.

UPDATE: A quick addendum. In a research note this morning, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett notes that while Sprint has reduced subscriber losses a bit, the cost of doing so has been worrisomely high.

“Yes, net subscriber losses were better,” Moffet explains. “But the cost was very high. Post-paid equipment subsidies soared to $139 per subsidized subscriber in Q3 (up 39 percent from last year), as the company recovered just 36 percent of their equipment costs….Yesterday’s results illustrate why it may not be possible for Sprint to have its cake and eat it too. After all the drastic cost cutting, after all the efforts to refresh the product line, after all the price cuts and new pricing plans, Sprint was able to manage only a modest improvement. Not growth, just a slightly slower rate of decline. And that Herculean effort almost broke the bank. The huge costs of even marginally improving gross additions (and the rate of net subscriber loss) crushed margins.”

In its second quarter–the first with the Pre in its lineup–Sprint (S) lost 991,000 postpaid subscribers. And in its third, reported yesterday, its lost 801,000. So subscriber loss, while unquestionably gruesome, is diminishing.

How much of this is due to Palm’s (PALM) Pre? Not that much, says CL King & Associates analyst Lawrence Harris, who believes the Pre had only a moderate impact on Sprint’s postpaid subscriber base.

“Within postpaid, the number of CDMA-only subscriber losses was about 100,000 in the September quarter, compared to the 200,000 in the June quarter,” Harris wrote in a research note to clients. “At Sprint, the Palm Pre is a CDMA-only postpaid device. The number of Sprint postpaid subscribers upgrading their handsets was slightly higher in the September quarter than in the June quarter at just over 2.0 million.”

According to Harris, “This number provides some indication of the available market for all high-end devices at Sprint. In Palm’s August quarter, 85% of the company’s sales went to Sprint. Given the absence of growth in Sprint’s CDMA postpaid category, it appears likely that most of the Palm Pre sales went to existing Sprint subscribers as opposed to winning customers from other carriers.”

That would seem to be the case. Sprint rivals AT&T (T) and Verizon Wireless (VZ) each added subscribers during the second quarter–1.4 million and 1.1 million, respectively. So if the Pre did anything for Sprint, it helped to stem CDMA postpaid losses a bit.

And that’s something, right? After all, there’s no panacea for Sprint’s affliction–well, perhaps there is, but it’s locked up in an exclusivity agreement with AT&T (T). Still, when Sprint last reported earnings, CEO Dan Hesse said the carrier expected to sign up more new customers as the Pre gained wider distribution through retail outlets like Best Buy (BBY) and RadioShack. And that doesn’t really seemed to have happened. Perhaps next quarter after Sprint launches the Pre’s not-quite-cheaper sibling, the Pixi.

UPDATE: A quick addendum. In a research note this morning, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett notes that while Sprint has reduced subscriber losses a bit, the cost of doing so has been worrisomely high.

“Yes, net subscriber losses were better,” Moffet explains. “But the cost was very high. Post-paid equipment subsidies soared to $139 per subsidized subscriber in Q3 (up 39 percent from last year), as the company recovered just 36 percent of their equipment costs….Yesterday’s results illustrate why it may not be possible for Sprint to have its cake and eat it too. After all the drastic cost cutting, after all the efforts to refresh the product line, after all the price cuts and new pricing plans, Sprint was able to manage only a modest improvement. Not growth, just a slightly slower rate of decline. And that Herculean effort almost broke the bank. The huge costs of even marginally improving gross additions (and the rate of net subscriber loss) crushed margins.”

Reporting a wider third-quarter loss than expected this morning, Sprint (S) said it lost 545,000 wireless customers and 801,000 more in the crucial postpaid category. That’s well below what analysts had feared, but brutal nonetheless. Even more so considering that AT&T (T) and Verizon Wireless (VZ) added two million and 1.2 million total customers respectively during their latest quarters.

As I said earlier this year, Sprint is hemorrhaging subscribers like Dan Ackroyd’s exsanguinating Julia Child. And it continues to do so. The company’s churn rate, or the measure of subscribers dropping service, was 2.17 percent, up from 2.05 percent in the second quarter. Alarming, to say the least, though as the charts below (click to enlarge) indicate, the bleeding is slowing a bit.

And what of Sprint’s financial performance for the quarter? Well, put it this way: The company lost nearly half a billion dollars. For the three months ending Sept. 30, Sprint lost $478 million, or 17 cents a share. This compares with a loss of $326 million, or 11 cents a share, during the same period in 2008.

Analysts had been expecting a loss of 21 cents a share for the quarter. Revenue was $8.04 billion, down nine percent from $8.82 billion last year and below consensus estimates of $8.09 billion for the quarter.

In other words, another tough quarter for Sprint. Said Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett: “The results illustrate the enormous challenge facing Sprint. Many of the cost cuts have already been taken. Their best exclusive handset has been deployed. And still, the rock rolls downhill.”

Now, that figure includes sales made abroad, so we don’t yet know how many were sold by AT&T (T), but it’s clear that the number was substantial. In its third quarter last year, AT&T activated 2.4 million iPhones and 40 percent of those were for subscribers who switched from other carriers. So the fact that Apple (AAPL) sold as many iPhones as it did in the company’s most recent quarter, bodes well for the carrier.

As Craig Moffett over at Bernstein Research notes, “It is entirely conceivable that AT&T’s iPhone alone will account for more than 100 percent of the entire industry’s post-paid subscriber growth in the third quarter.”

But therein lies the rub. For while sales of Apple’s handset remain strong, the heavy subsidies it requires have pushed AT&T’s wireless margins down. And the heavy data traffic associated with the handset have led to widespread complaints about AT&T’s network, forcing infrastructure upgrades. Worse, AT&T’s dependence on iPhone exclusivity at a time when Apple is clearly transitioning away from such a model leaves it quite vulnerable.

“While the strong sales of the iPhone are positive for AT&T in the near term, they increase the company’s reliance on a product for which we do not believe it will be able to maintain exclusivity,” Pali Research analyst Walter Piecyk wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. “We believe more than one third of AT&T’s post paid customer base is tied to an iPhone user and that mix is likely to rise significantly over the next few quarters.”

But not this quarter. This quarter, AT&T is expected to add 1.5 million to 1.7 million net wireless customers, driven by demand for the iPhone 3GS, which was released early on in the quarter. And while another drop in wireline customers is likely to weigh on results, it will be tempered once again by the iPhone. AT&T is expected to earn 50 cents a share, compared to 55 cents in the year-earlier third quarter, according to analysts polled by Thomson Reuters, who see revenue falling to $30.9 billion from $31.3 billion.

Now, that figure includes sales made abroad, so we don’t yet know how many were sold by AT&T (T), but it’s clear that the number was substantial. In its third quarter last year, AT&T activated 2.4 million iPhones and 40 percent of those were for subscribers who switched from other carriers. So the fact that Apple (AAPL) sold as many iPhones as it did in the company’s most recent quarter, bodes well for the carrier.

As Craig Moffett over at Bernstein Research notes, “It is entirely conceivable that AT&T’s iPhone alone will account for more than 100 percent of the entire industry’s post-paid subscriber growth in the third quarter.”

But therein lies the rub. For while sales of Apple’s handset remain strong, the heavy subsidies it requires have pushed AT&T’s wireless margins down. And the heavy data traffic associated with the handset have led to widespread complaints about AT&T’s network, forcing infrastructure upgrades. Worse, AT&T’s dependence on iPhone exclusivity at a time when Apple is clearly transitioning away from such a model leaves it quite vulnerable.

“While the strong sales of the iPhone are positive for AT&T in the near term, they increase the company’s reliance on a product for which we do not believe it will be able to maintain exclusivity,” Pali Research analyst Walter Piecyk wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. “We believe more than one third of AT&T’s post paid customer base is tied to an iPhone user and that mix is likely to rise significantly over the next few quarters.”

But not this quarter. This quarter, AT&T is expected to add 1.5 million to 1.7 million net wireless customers, driven by demand for the iPhone 3GS, which was released early on in the quarter. And while another drop in wireline customers is likely to weigh on results, it will be tempered once again by the iPhone. AT&T is expected to earn 50 cents a share, compared to 55 cents in the year-earlier third quarter, according to analysts polled by Thomson Reuters, who see revenue falling to $30.9 billion from $31.3 billion.

This stunning factoid comes courtesy of the latest Weekend Media Blast piece from Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett. He notes that in the U.S. wireless industry, subscriber growth over the last 12 months is up 5.3 percent, but revenue per subscriber is down 1.7 percent, producing just 3.6 percent revenue growth. The cable industry, by contrast, grew revenue per sub 4.1 percent over the same time period; combined with modest sub growth and you get industry growth of 5.3 percent.

Moffett says there are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is that the wireless market is much, much more competitive.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

That’s the gist of an argument put forth this week by Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, who believes that with the iPhone and App Store, Apple (AAPL) has upended the wireless market in much the same way it upended the music industry with the iPod and iTunes.

“It wasn’t that long ago that AT&T’s exclusive agreement with Apple’s iconic iPhone looked like a customer relations masterstroke for the carrier,” Moffett wrote in a note to clients. “AT&T Mobility, a brand that had once been cingular-ly stodgy and tired, was suddenly, well, relevant again. Apple’s iPhone meant that AT&T was the place for cool handsets. Better, it was the place for wireless data….Somewhere along the way, however, Apple has stolen the march, and in the process has recast AT&T from hero to villain.”

AT&T, says Moffett, was roundly jeered at every mention at Apple’s last Worldwide Developer Conference. And, as someone who attended that event, I can attest that this was indeed the case. Certainly the revelation that AT&T (T) wasn’t yet supporting iPhone features like MMS and tethering did not go over well with the WWDC audience, which was already abuzz with criticisms of the carrier’s slow data connections.

With the iPhone, Apple made AT&T Mobility relevant again. It brought the company millions of new subscribers. But in the process, Apple also realigned the strategic playing field in its favor. Radically. Writes Moffett: “Remarkably, Apple has so thoroughly stolen the customer relationship–who would argue that Apple iPhone customers’ first affinity is to the device rather than to the network–that the network is not only irrelevant, it is rather a source of derision.”

As NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker said back in 2007, “Apple has destroyed the music business and if we don’t take control, they’ll do the same thing on the video side.”

Or, perhaps, to the wireless business.