Access to high-speed Internet service — also known as broadband — has become a basic public necessity, just like water or electricity.
All the discussion yesterday was pretty technical but it is very simple----the American people must demand and elect politicians that want to build REAL LOCAL ECONOMIES WITH SMALL BUSINESSES COMPETING IN ALL INDUSTRIES AGAINST GLOBAL CORPORATIONS LIKE COMCAST/VERIZON and it is our city government like Baltimore that will spark that competition. Startups and innovation are spin for policies meant only to create new products that global corporations will buy-----it is meant to make sure the US does not build real local competition to bring down cost and boost quality. Baltimore City Hall should be doing this----and yet, they are heavy into startup and innovation and pretending global corporate branches are regional businesses.
Rawlings-Blake is holding our Baltimore underground conduit not only to hedge revenue for the city----she is keeping it public as with our public water just long enough for ratepayers and this $1 trillion of infrastructure building to rebuild all these conduits and then it will be privatized to a global Comcast for example.
Below you see the difference in rates for super-speed in Europe-----very inexpensive----and here comes Comcast in the US. It was Baltimore's choice of moving Comcast into our internet market under O'Malley/Rawlings-Blake that is leading to this total capture by Comcast of our telecommunications. I say Comcast because we know this coming decades will see Verizon and Comcast merge into one----called something like VerCom global I'm sure.
When you come out shouting for FIOS---and not for several smaller high speed telecom companies to compete----this is what you get----and it will knock all citizen and small business consumers off the internet----so that these global corporations can have all the internet space.
Comcast's super fast Internet costs $300 a month
by Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery July 14, 2015: 5:53 PM ET
Hooking up your home to 2 Gigabit speed Comcast Internet? That'll be about $1,300 and an eight-week wait.
As promised, Comcast (CCV) is starting to offer the fastest Internet in the nation -- for a jaw-dropping $300 per month.That doesn't include an installation fee of around $500, plus another $500 for "activation." Then there's an added cost for "equipment, taxes and fees." Oh, and don't forget the punitive fee if you break your two-year contract.
That means Comcast's next-generation Gigabit Pro, delivering data at 2 Gigabits per second, could cost $1,300 just to start.
That's 200 times faster than most current high-speed Internet networks. It's twice as fast as Google Fiber, which is slowly expanding across the country, but Google (GOOGL, Tech30) offers its über fast Internet for $70 a month. You only pay the $300 construction fee if you cancel.
You could theoretically download an entire music album in three seconds and a feature-length movie in 19 seconds with Comcast Gigabit Pro. You can send data just as quickly.
Still, despite it being a cable service provider, Comcast Gigabit Pro doesn't include TV service. And this super high-speed Internet is "limited... to a single outlet." So, you better have good WiFi.
The new service is available in Atlanta, Chicago, and select major cities across California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan and Tennessee.
For those not knowing Clinton/Bush/Obama ignored US laws against monopoly and spent two decades really fueling those mergers and acquisitions sparked by global market policies. When you think of internet---phone----TV we now think of one company with bundled packages. Comcast was a cable corporation---then was allowed to buy free TV network NBC and made that a global corporation---so Comcast is already a global corporation. Obama mandated a change to digital broadcasting to advance the march to total media control by telecommunications----this is what we call consolidated monopoly. Then, Obama allowed an auction of public airwaves giving already existing media outlets the upper-hand and what do we see on free TV-------ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX all now have several stations linked to the national one ----they are doing that because free TV is going to end-----and these TV station airwaves will be designated for all of this high-speed internet and telecom global industry. It's free TV today----a decade or so it will all be part of this global super-speed internet that only global corporations will be able to access.
Who owns Comcast? A VERY, VERY, VERY NEO-CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN AND THIS IS WHY OUR LOCAL NEWS---WBAL IS NBC FOR EXAMPLE IS SO GLOBAL CORPORATE---IT WORKS FOR WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT AND JOHNS HOPKINS.
Brian L. Roberts (born June 28, 1959) is an American businessman and is chairman and CEO of Comcast Corporation, an American company providing cable, entertainment, and communications products and services.
Roberts was born into a Jewish family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Suzanne Fleisher, a former actress and playwright, and Ralph J. Roberts, the co-founder of Comcast Corporation. A graduate of Germantown Academy, he earned his B.S. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was admitted to the Zeta Psi fraternity.[ci
He was a founding co-chair of Philadelphia 2000, the nonpartisan host committee for the 2000 Republican National Convention.
Roberts and global Comcast are a perfect fit for a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development and will be handed monopoly control of Baltimore's telecom market if we do not diversify NOW.
— one of the world’s premier media and entertainment companies. Continually bringing new television, movie and theme park experiences to a global audience.NBCUniversal Cable NetworksNBCUniversal Cable networks engage a wide variety of audiences on multiple platforms. From drama and comedy, to unscripted series, from the latest in news and sports, to fashion and kids, our cable networks and digital media properties offer viewers and advertisers unsurpassed value and interest.
Golf Channel Matches Highest Rated Year Ever
Our Cable Networks segment operates a diversified portfolio of 16 national cable networks, 15 regional sports and news networks, more than 60 international channels, and digital media properties consisting primarily of brand-aligned and other websites. Our popular cable networks include Bravo Media, consistently the fastest growing ad-supported cable entertainment network; Sprout, the first 24-hour preschool destination available on TV; and USA Network, the number 1 network in all of basic cable. Among the diverse digital media properties of NBCUniversal are Fandango, the nation’s leading moviegoer destination; and Hulu with hit television shows, clips and movies from more than 230 top content companies.
NBCUniversal Broadcast TelevisionOur Broadcast Television segment operates the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, which together serve audiences and advertisers in all 50 states, including the largest U.S. metropolitan areas.
Founded in 1926, NBC is the nation’s first national broadcast network. Today, the NBC television network gives viewers a combination of NBC’s national programming and the local programming of more than 200 affiliated stations. Through its extensive network, Spanish-language broadcast network Telemundo reaches U.S. Hispanic viewers in 210 markets through its 17 owned stations, broadcast and MVPD affiliates. Telemundo is the second largest provider of Spanish-language content worldwide and syndicates content to more than 100 countries in over 35 languages. NBC News has long been a trusted source of global news and information for American audiences, while NBC Sports Group continues to deliver some of the most-watched events on television, including the top-rated NBC Sunday Night Football and decades of Olympic Games. Comcast and NBC are bringing these broadcasts to more audiences on devices in and out of the home.
NBC Entertainment NBC News Telemundo NBC Sports GroupFilmed EntertainmentFilmed Entertainment consists of the operations of Universal Pictures and Focus Features which produce, acquire, market and distribute filmed entertainment worldwide in various media formats for theatrical, home entertainment, television and other distribution platforms.
Universal Pictures and Focus Features create and distribute filmed entertainment for a growing global marketplace. Since pioneering the motion picture business more than a century ago, Universal has become known for its diverse slate of hits, including classics such as Jaws, E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial, Jurassic Park and Les Miserables; offbeat comedies like Bridesmaids and Ted; and popular franchises such as Back to the Future, Despicable Me, and The Fast and the Furious. Focus Features makes original, daring films such as Brokeback Mountain, Lost in Translation, Moonrise Kingdom, Dallas Buyers Club and the Theory of Everything. Universal and Focus distribute their pictures internationally through theaters, and in homes through DVDs and digital media platforms, TV and on demand.
If you look at a complete list of holdings by Comcast you see it looks just like our global food corporations like Pepsi------they are being allowed to buy across the board----and look----there is ATT broadband-----so there goes ATT from the broadband competition.
When a corporate government like Maryland pretends to be offering competition----it makes a branch of a global or national corporation look regional----these 'competitors' are all linked to these consolidated corporate structures. This is why Comcast feels it can charge $300 a month for what sells for $50----and its service is not that good.Comcast, AT&T Broadband Close MergerBy Erin Joyce | November 18, 2002
Page 1 of 1
AT&T has completed the spin-off of its broadband unit and merged it with Comcast Corp. , officially creating the nation's largest cable company valued at around $60 billion, including stock and debt.
- Comcast Holdings Corporation (or Comcast Holdings)
- Comcast Cable Communications LLC (Xfinity)
- Comcast Cable Holdings LLC (formerly AT&T Broadband Corporation)
- Comcast MO Group LLC (formerly Media One or Bell West)
- Comcast MO of Delaware, LLC
- Comcast Cable Communications LLC (Xfinity)
- AT&T Broadband
- Susquehanna Communications
- Patriot Media
- Commuter Cable
- Group W Cable
- Adelphia Communications Corporation
When you sell free TV NBC to global cable corporation Comcast----and you allow Comcast to become internet providers----you are deliberately consolidating the media industry and this started more heavily under Clinton-----and Obama has super-sized these industries globally.
It is painful to watch free TV in Baltimore. Absolutely no journalism----so much sports and weather-----the stations with oldies filled with so much low-end advertising most having goals of defrauding people---the ads are taking more and more and more of free TV and making people hate watching----that is how you kill free TV----just as with bad public schools and bad public transportation.
When Comcast was allowed into Baltimore market the deal came with a Public Access station for Baltimore City that was tied to Comcast-----to see our government access station you have to subscribe to Comcast. In other words----it will disappear soon. Right now it is simply used for marketing.
We all know Rupert Murdoch of FOX and his global corporation is very, very, very neo-conservative Republican and FOX is the major network buying more and more TV stations.
SEE WHY NO ONE IN BALTIMORE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY AND IS ALLOWED NO VOICE UNLESS YOU ARE PART OF THIS CORPORATE NON-PROFIT SYSTEM?
So, the goal of global pols is to dismantle yet another public industry------free TV and radio------move all access online and then make one big monopoly of internet access with Verizon and Comcast merging-----if these International Economic Zone policies are allowed to continue-----all of our news and media programming will be international----not American.
By CBSNews.com AP December 29, 2009, 2:01 AM
Is Free TV Coming To An End?
Net Worth: $7.8 billion What It's From: Media/Entertainment Where He Lives: New York, N.Y. Rank on Global List: 43
For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.
The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.
That will play out in living rooms across the country. The changes could mean higher cable or satellite TV bills, as the networks and local stations squeeze more fees from pay-TV providers such as Comcast and DirecTV for the right to show broadcast TV channels in their lineups. The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels - a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s.
"Good programing is expensive," Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox, told a shareholder meeting this fall. "It can no longer be supported solely by advertising revenues."
Fox is pursuing its strategy in public, warning that its broadcasts - including college football bowl games - could go dark Friday for subscribers of Time Warner Cable, unless the pay-TV operator gives Fox higher fees. For its part, Time Warner Cable is asking customers whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations.
The future of free TV also could be altered as the biggest pay-TV provider, Comcast Corp., prepares to take control of NBC. Comcast has not signaled plans to end NBC's free broadcasts. But Jeff Zucker, who runs NBC and its sister cable channels such as CNBC and Bravo, told investors this month that "the cable model is just superior to the broadcast model."
The traditional broadcast model works like this: CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox distribute shows through a network of local stations. The networks own a few stations in big markets, but most are "affiliates," owned by separate companies.
Traditionally, the networks paid affiliates to broadcast their shows, though those fees have dwindled to near nothing as local stations have seen their audience shrink. What hasn't changed is where the money mainly comes from: advertising.
Cable channels make most of their money by charging pay-TV providers a monthly fee per subscriber for their programing. On average, the pay-TV providers pay about 26 cents for each channel they carry, according to research firm SNL Kagan. A channel as highly rated as ESPN can get close to $4, while some, such as MTV2, go for just a few pennies.
With both advertising and fees, ESPN has seen its revenue grow to $6.3 billion this year from $1.8 billion a decade ago, according to SNL Kagan estimates. It has been able to bid for premium events that networks had traditionally aired, such as football games. Cable channels also have been able to fund high-quality shows, such as AMC's "Mad Men," rather than recycling movies and TV series.
That, plus a growing number of channels, has given cable a bigger share of the ad pie. In 1998, cable channels drew roughly $9.1 billion, or 24 percent of total TV ad spending, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. By 2008, they were getting $21.6 billion, or 39 percent.
Having two revenue streams - advertising and fees from pay-TV providers - has insulated cable channels from the recession. In contrast, over-the-air stations have been forced to cut staff, and at least two broadcast groups sought bankruptcy protection this year.
Fox illustrates the trend: Its broadcast operations reported a 54 percent drop in operating income for the quarter that ended in September. Its cable channels, which include Fox News and FX, grew their operating income 41 percent.
Analyst Tom Love of ZenithOptimedia said he expects the big networks will end the year with a 9 percent drop in ad revenue, followed by an 8 percent drop in 2010 and zero growth in 2011.
A small chunk of the ad revenue is being recouped online, where the networks sell episodes for a few dollars each or run ads alongside shows on sites such as Hulu. Media economist Jack Myers projects online video advertising will grow into a $2 billion business by 2012, from just $350 million to $400 million this year.
But that is not significant enough to make up for the lost ad revenue on the airwaves. Advertisers spent $34 billion on broadcast commercials in 2008, down by $2.4 billion from two years earlier, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising.
So rather than wait for the Internet to become a bigger source of income, the networks and local stations are mimicking what cable channels do: They're charging pay-TV companies a monthly fee per subscriber to carry their programming.
Since 1994, the Federal Communications Commission has let networks and their affiliates seek payments for including their programming in the pay-TV lineup. Not everyone demanded payments at first. Instead they relied on the broader audience that cable and satellite gave them to increase what they could charge advertisers.
The big networks also were content to let their broadcast stations essentially be subsidized by higher fees for the cable channels that fell under the same corporate umbrella. A pay-TV company negotiating with the Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, is likely paying more for the ABC Family channel than it otherwise would, with the extra assumed to help Disney cover its costs for the ABC network broadcasts.
But over time - such contracts generally run about three years - more networks began demanding payments for the stations they own. And affiliates already receiving the fees have bargained for more money.
Some talks have been tense. In 2007, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates 32 network-affiliated stations around the country, pulled its signals for nearly a month from Mediacom Communications Corp., which provides cable TV to about 1.3 million subscribers, mainly in small cities.
The American Cable Association says its members - mainly small cable TV providers - have seen their costs for carrying local TV stations more than triple over the past three years. The group's head, Matt Polka, says those fees have gone "straight to consumers' pocketbooks" in the form of higher cable bills.
Gannett Co., for instance, which operates 23 stations, has taken in $56 million in fees from pay-TV operators this year after negotiating a new batch of agreements, up from $18 million in 2008. Dave Lougee, president of Gannett's broadcast arm, defends the fees, saying "broadcasters were late to the game in really starting to go after the fair market value of their signals."
Analysts estimate CBS managed to get as much as 50 cents per subscriber in its most recent talks with pay-TV providers that carry CBS-owned stations. CBS Corp. chief Leslie Moonves said such fees should add "hundreds of millions of dollars to revenues annually."
That could be just the beginning. CBS and Fox are also asking for a portion of the fees that their affiliates get, arguing that the networks' shows are what give local stations the leverage to ask for fees.
Over time, the networks might be able to get even more money by abandoning the affiliate structure and undoing a key element of free TV.
Here's why: Pay-TV providers are paying the networks only for the stations the networks own. That amounts to a little less than a third of the TV audience, which means local affiliates recoup two-thirds of the fees. If a network operated purely as a cable channel and cut the affiliates out, the network could get the fees for the entire pay-TV audience.
If forced to go independent, affiliates would have to air their own programming, including local news and syndicated shows.
Fitch Ratings analyst Jamie Rizzo predicts that at least one of the four broadcast networks "could explore" becoming a cable channel as early as 2011.
Any shift would take years, as the networks untangle complicated affiliate contracts. At an analyst conference last year, CBS's Moonves called the idea an "a very interesting proposition." But he added that it "would really change the universe that we're in."
As I said Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals always POSE PROGRESSIVE---THEY PRETEND POLICIES THEY PUSH WILL HELP MAIN STREET. When the national media touted Obama as fighting for NET NEUTRALITY-----this was supposedly why we needed to sell all of that public air wave spectrum ----to create competitive internet markets.
IF YOU KNOW A POLITICIAN IS A GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERAL OR NEO-CONS YOU KNOW THEY ARE LYING---THEY ARE WORKING TO CONSOLIDATE ANOTHER PUBLIC ASSET----OUR AIRWAVES.
Everyone knows at prices in billions only the rich will be buying---and then they will consolidate----and flip these purchases for profit---selling them to the same telecom monopolies----absolutely no one believes Obama was protecting net neutrality.
High-frequency means stations you find from channel 40 on up-----low-frequency is the Channel 2 to 40. The reason most free TV is at the lower end is that these signals are strong enough to be captured and sent to all homes.....these are the frequencies most wanted by the internet corporations like Comcast and Verizon.
THE POINT IS THIS-------THESE MEDIA CORPORATIONS ARE BUYING THESE BROADBAND SPECTRUM NOT TO EXPAND FREE TV -----BUT TO CONVERT TO HIGH-SPEED INTERNET---THE KIND OVER 90% OF AMERICANS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS.
They make this sound like a free market move----when it will all end in the hands of a crony monopoly of global media. Republican corporate pols shouted the same thing as they dismantled our public energy utilities----and now we have soon to be global Exelon.
The F.C.C. chairman, Tom Wheeler. “Years of hard work paved the way” for the auction, he said.
When Congress votes for these corporate appointments to Federal Agencies like the FCC---it mirrors the appointments by governors like O'Malley-----creating public policy by commission and then appointing corporate people moving all public policy to global corporate profit.
IT MATTERS WHO WE SEND TO CONGRESS----WHO WE SEND TO MARYLAND ASSEMBLY---WHO WE SEND TO BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR-----BECAUSE THEY ARE APPROVING ALL THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE APPOINTMENTS TO OUR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
When I hear someone tell me-----Obama can't help it-----O'Malley can't help it-------Rawlings-Blake can't help it -----Wall Street is too strong ----I shout
YES THEY CAN HELP IT----THEY WERE ELECTED TO CHANGE THIS------AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE FOOLED INTO THINKING THIS CANNOT BE REVERSED!
Bidding in Government Auction of Airwaves Reaches $34 Billion
By EDWARD WYATTNOV. 22, 2014
A cell tower in California. Bidding for six blocks of airwaves to be used in mobile broadband has topped $34 billion, more than three times the reserve price set by the Federal Communications Commission.
Credit Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
WASHINGTON — A government auction of airwaves for use in mobile broadband has blown through presale estimates, becoming the biggest auction in the Federal Communications Commission’s history and signaling that wireless companies expect demand for Internet access by smartphones to continue to soar.
And it’s not over yet.
Companies bid more than $34 billion as of Friday afternoon for six blocks of airwaves, totaling 65 megahertz of the electromagnetic spectrum, being sold by the F.C.C. That total is more than three times the $10.5 billion reserve price that the commission put on the sale, the first offering of previously unavailable airwaves in six years.
Prices are likely to rise further, because the auction has no definite end and could continue for days or weeks. The previous record was $18.9 billion raised in a 2008 sale of airwaves that, because of their lower frequency, are considered more attractive for wireless phone use than the current batch.
“It’s stunning,” said Preston Padden, executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition, a group representing broadcast television stations that are considering giving up their spectrum for sale in the F.C.C.’s next auction, scheduled for 2016. “Consumer demand for wireless broadband is on a growth curve that looks like a hockey stick, and carriers are desperate to keep up with that demand.”
Several factors appear to have contributed to the auction’s success, as the pent-up demand from years without an auction coincided with the explosive popularity of smartphones and mobile broadband. The response is more surprising given that the airwaves’ high frequency makes them less attractive for wireless use than those sold in the last auction or scheduled for the 2016 sale.
Coming soon after President Obama called for strong net neutrality regulations to be applied equally to wireless networks, the robust bidding also seems to indicate that mobile phone companies are not as reluctant to make new investments as they indicated they were when protesting the president’s recommendation.
The auction is a significant victory for the F.C.C. and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the agency in the Commerce Department that oversees the nation’s communications systems. It makes it much likelier that broadcast stations might be willing to give up or move their positions on the spectrum to free up airwaves to be sold in the 2016 auction, because they will receive a portion of the proceeds as an incentive.
“Years of hard work paved the way” for the auction, “and ongoing bidding appears to signal considerable commercial interest in this spectrum,” the F.C.C. chairman, Tom Wheeler, and an assistant secretary of commerce, Lawrence E. Strickling, said in a joint statement on Friday.
About $7 billion of the proceeds will be used to finance the building of a nationwide public-safety communications network, known as FirstNet, with the remainder going to the Treasury.
A successful sale was anything but a foregone conclusion. The frequencies are currently occupied by government agencies, including branches of the military, which had to be cajoled to agree to move out or to share portions of them.
The relatively high position on the electromagnetic spectrum of the blocks being sold also cast doubt on their attractiveness. Higher-frequency waves generally have more trouble passing through buildings, making them less desirable for mobile phones, although they are able to carry lots of data, increasingly important to wireless broadband.
Frequencies being sold include two blocks in the 1695-1710 megahertz band, and four paired sets of frequencies at 1755-1780 and 2155-2180 megahertz. The next scheduled broadcast spectrum auction, in 2016, involves frequencies in the 600 megahertz band.
The last such sale was in 2008, when the iPhone was barely a year old and demand for mobile broadband was at a relative trickle. Today, as consumers stream video and share photographs with many more phones, tablets and other devices, demand for bandwidth has exploded.
Some analysts have also speculated that because the auction of broadcast television bands currently scheduled for 2016 has already been delayed twice, buyers might be skeptical that those frequencies will come to market on schedule — giving them extra incentive to buy now rather than wait.
Still, the current spectrum, known as the AWS-3 bands, is also not likely to be available for use for some years. Government users will first have to move out of the bands, or buyers figure out how to share some of the airwaves with military operators.
Seventy companies were approved to bid in the auction, but the high bidders will not be identified until after the auction is completed. New owners will then have to engineer their devices to work with the high-frequency spectrum, although the biggest companies, like AT&T and Verizon Wireless, already use similar, adjacent frequencies, so that is not likely to be too onerous.
Verizon Wireless and AT&T are assumed to be among the big bidders in the sale. But Philip Cusick, a financial analyst at J.P. Morgan, wrote in a note to clients on Thursday that “the continued rapid rise in bids is a sign that there is a third, or perhaps fourth, large bidder in the auction.”
One of those could be Dish Network, the satellite company, which already owns some nearby frequencies. Dish Network’s share price rose 13 percent last week as investors realized the aggressive bidding meant Dish’s holdings were probably undervalued.
Shares of Verizon and AT&T, for their part, fell slightly, as analysts noted that the companies might be spending more than they expected.
Some prices are truly eye-popping. The price for licenses in a 20-megahertz block of paired frequencies covering New York and Long Island and portions of adjacent states stood at $1.96 billion Friday afternoon. In the bidding round that starts Monday morning, the minimum bid is more than $2 billion.
The results of the yet-to-be-completed auction have some parties calling for Congress to pave the way for more sales, and soon. “Companies are clamoring to give the federal government money,” Vince Jesaitis, vice president for government affairs at the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade group, wrote on the group’s blog last week.
“The clamoring for spectrum available in this auction,” he added, “should refocus our lawmakers’ attention on the value of this resource and the need to put it to use to meet the needs of the American public.”
FOOLED US ONCE ---SHAME ON THEM----FOOLED US TWICE----SHAME ON US.
Most of the tech startup and innovation is driven by global technology corporations wanting new products to keep their BRAND in profits. I showed that most Americans will not even be able to access mobile phones or internet so who are going to buy that new APP? You have to market globally and only the global corporations with governors, Congressional pols, or Presidents taking you on Asian economic tours will grow that business. Startups are meant to keep Americans from rebuild REAL local economies. We don't need innovation---or global markets-----WE NEED LOCAL COMPETITION IN INDUSTRIES MONOPOLIZED BY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.
This is what a Maryland Assembly and Governor O'Malley or Hogan would be sending funding to do if they were social Democrats----they are not---they are raging global Wall Street neo-liberals and neo-cons so they send all that money to build International Economic Zones -----Innovation Centers----with no funds going to growing small businesses the people really need.
All of this government funding used to go to Small Business Assoc which and granted to grow competition in industries -----now it is going to maintain monopoly.
Why startups fail, according to their founders
The top reason? They make products no one wants.
When the founder of a startup company shuts down her or his business, it’s customary to pen an essay that tells the rest of the community what went wrong. Call it a failure post-mortem. Nine out of 10 startups fail, which is why the failure post-mortem has become so common that it’s practically a Silicon Valley cliché. Some of these essays are honest, enlightening, and brave. Others point fingers or issue backward non-apologies. Medium, the publishing platform, is the preferred medium.
The proliferation of the failure post-mortem has helped create a bizarre cult of failure that seems wrong-headed. Celebrating failure (“Fail fast” goes the mantra) seems to let people off the hook for bad behavior. Upon closer inspection, it seems less misguided than necessary. Starting a high-growth business is a roller coaster. Founder-CEOs feel pressure to keep up the facade of success, even when things are actually falling apart behind the scenes. Only recently, after the tragic suicide of Jody Sherman, CEO of a startup called Ecomom, did the technology community begin to publicly acknowledge the problems with its “entrepreneur as hero” narrative. Publicly admitting to failure, and examining it, can take guts. It also distills the narrative to a case study from which other entrepreneurs can learn.
CB Insights recently parsed 101 post-mortem essays by startup founders to pinpoint the reasons they believe their company failed. On Thursday the company crunched the numbers to reveal that the number-one reason for failure, cited by 42% of polled startups, is the lack of a market need for their product.
That should be self-evident. If no one wants your product, your company isn’t going to succeed. But many startups build things people don’t want with the irrational hope that they’ll convince them otherwise.
The most prominent modern example of this phenomenon is the mobile phone. People dismissed it as a novelty in its early days. Obviously, cell phones are no longer a novelty. The late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs famously said, “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” The problem is that entrepreneurs have taken that to heart. For every $19 billion company like Uber, the private transportation service, there are countless frivolous products that never catch on.
Beyond the idea, there are more practical reasons startups fail. Polled founders also cited a lack of sufficient capital (29%), the assembly of the wrong team for the project (23%), and superior competition (19%) as top reasons for failure.
The self-assessment lines up, for the most part, with what industry experts have said. Paul Graham, a partner at the Y Combinator startup accelerator, wrote in 2007 that startups usually die because they run out of money or a founder leaves.
Steve Hogan, who runs a startup turn-around shop called Tech-Rx, says companies with founded by one person—that is, no partners—are most likely to fail. He ranks product demand, or a lack thereof, second. The existence of a co-founder helps avoid many of the reasons cited at the bottom of the CB Insights chart, he says, including disharmony, poor marketing, and the wrong team.
Running out of cash does not cause a startup’s failure, Hogan says—it’s merely a symptom of another issue. Excluding instances of “stupid spending” or the inability to raise capital in the first place, startups tend to run out of cash when a CEO has overlooked all other indicators of failure. “Unfortunately, sometimes it’s the only ‘symptom’ that the leadership sees,” he says.