Mediaboss Marketing

From generation one to the fifth, the telecommunications technology has evolved to improve how audiences engage with each other and the world around them. The fifth generation (5G) technology isnt just an advancement in mobile networks but a huge paradigm shift in connectivity, as we know it. The launch of 5G services in the country has been a long wait and unsurprisingly widespread with speculation. Although the 5G spectrum auctions are soon to begin in India, the intended benefits for the consumer or the enterprises has become a common conversation across the telecom and technology corridors.

In countries where 5G has already launched, advantages such as digital connectivity and improved latency with faster data transfer have been the visible benefits. Globally (or countries with this technology), 5G has become a catalyst for the entire internet experience such as Internet of Things (IoT), 4K video streaming, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and machine-to-machine communications.

With 5G technology finally set to launch in India, industry experts believe that this will usher in a new era for Digital India. With demand for seamless streaming of high-quality video content on the rise, 5G could be a potential solution to deliver a stable, better UX with real-time processing. This is possibly one of the many reasons why OTT players are preparing for an enhanced viewing experience. Consumers are now counting on HD and 4K videos to be delivered faster (in terms of streaming quality).

According to a report commissioned by Intel, the media and entertainment experiences enabled by 5G will generate up to $1.3 trillion (0.9 trillion) in revenue by 2028. Moreover, with a total of 646 million activeInternet users, proliferation of smartphones and the accessibility to the internet, India is creating a huge demand for the entertainment industry to flourish.

While expectations are soaring high, the ground reality of 5G is a little different. The implementation of 5G in the OTT and entertainment sector faces several challenges like network coverage, infrastructure, network congestion and digital inclusion. This tends to be the replay of what the world experienced during the 4G roll out numerous users, lack of infrastructure and network with bottlenecks. Similarly, a higher reserve price for 5G spectrum will lead to higher consumer tariffs, making it unaffordable for the masses, further deepening the digital divide. Above all, the increased number of internet users will lead to network congestion and repeat the cycle of buffering, low speed and poor video quality.

As the rollout and auctions move from a planning stage to execution, its important to evaluate how the benefits of this technology can be extended to audiences across the length and breadth of the country. From an on-ground deployment perspective, the adoption of a cloud-fragment based technology will enable the 5G network to solve the larger Internet challenges. While 5G will reduce the network latency, a cloud-fragment (hyperlocal edge cloud) within the telecom infrastructure will reduce the latency associated with various data centres, back-haul and network providers. It will decentralize content (and the consumer demand for content) by deploying its edge servers, closer to the user. This is the technology solution that SugarBox Networks is building for. By bringing the benefit of edge closest to the end user, SugarBox substantially improves latency and QoS for the end user. The patented edge cloud technology can augment the 5G rollout by decongesting the network, ensuring high mobility offload, at the same time augmenting the existing 3G/4G networks will ensure a smoother transition to the latest network technologies. The objective is to create a flexible environment where the edge cloud technology solution will enable the best viewing experiences for the end-user. Thus, bringing a dynamic change for the OTT streaming experience.

Conclusively, the lens should be that of effective collaboration of the telecom and tech companies to build a better framework for digitisation of services and experiences!

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising,advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

See the rest here:
Will 5G truly change the OTT streaming experience in India? - Exchange4Media

Meesho, Indias internet commerce platform has adapted a two-pronged approach with its latest marketing campaign to tap into Indias small businesses. Titled Sahi sahi customer, toh business ek number, the digital campaign highlights the Meesho Promise of how sellers on Meesho can grow their business rapidly by aiming to change their perceptions around online shoppers. It reiterates how customers on the e-commerce platform are looking to maximize their shopping experience within a budget. The campaign also has an on-ground leg in the form of Meesho Seller Express which will traverse the country in a bid to engage with small businesses.

The digital campaign is further divided into two phases. The first phase will focus on how Meesho provides sellers with access to a wide value-seeking customer base along with its 0% commission feature. Meesho was the first e-commerce platform in the country to introduce 0% commission for all its sellers. The second phase will feature the newer initiatives launched this year, namely, Zero Penalty and 7-Day Payments. The Zero Penalty feature ensures sellers are not penalized for self or auto cancellation of orders. A first for e-commerce, these features are available for all sellers registered on Meesho, thus creating a level playing field for small and medium businesses to operate online.

With a mission to enable deeper engagement with small businesses in the country, the Meesho Seller Express will begin its journey in Bengaluru and subsequently progress to Hyderabad, Tiruppur and Coimbatore. The express will further continue its journey through the eastern, western and northern regions of India through the course of this year. The branded canter will be present at select locations in various cities to engage with prospective sellers. Along with an introduction to Meesho, there will be exciting virtual reality games and thematic simulations as part of the experience.

Commenting on the campaign launch,Lakshminarayan Swaminathan, CXO, Supply Growth, Meeshosaid, We have just crossed 6 lakh seller registrations on the platform, recording a 7X increase since April 2021. Nearly 70% of all Meesho sellers hail from tier 2+ cities such as Amritsar, Rajkot and Tiruppur, among others. With the kind of growth we are witnessing on our platform, we are even more focused on making deeper inroads into Bharat. Our two pronged approach ensures that we are reaching out to MSMEs through both digital and on-ground avenues. Through the Meesho Seller Express, we aim to get up close and personal with our sellers, allowing them to share their insights and opinions.

Pallavi Chakravarti, Creative Head-West, DDB Mudrasays, Getting the right customer pool is critical for any business to grow. Even more so if the business owner is selling on the vast ocean that is the internet. Our campaign seeks to allay the fears that every growth-oriented seller is bound to have and convince him or her that Meesho is the right platform to connect them with customers who seek both great quality and great value. And we've done this by painting an interesting picture of perception versus reality."

"During our planning phase, we identified how small business communities appreciate brands which are actively engaging with them on-ground. This experiential setup is designed to be informative as well as interactive for prospective sellers with a plethora of engaging touch points present throughout this process. We have tried to ensure that this activity focuses on giving sellers an opportunity to digitize and grow their businesses with Meesho.", said Chandra Gulati, Director of Zeeco Brand experiences Pvt Ltd

Each master is shot in Hindi and Tamil, and further amplified in other regional languages like Bengali, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and Gujara

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising,advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

More:
'Find the right customers to grow your business,' says Meesho in its latest campaign - Exchange4Media

Follow live updates on the House committee hearing on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

WASHINGTON The four hearings held in the past few weeks by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, with their clear, uninterrupted narratives about President Donald J. Trumps effort to undercut the peaceful transfer of power, have left some pro-Trump Republicans wringing their hands with regret about a decision made nearly a year ago.

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, chose last summer to withdraw all of his nominees to the committee amid a dispute with Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her rejection of his first two choices a turning point that left the nine-member investigative committee without a single ally of Mr. Trump.

Mostly in private, Republicans loyal to Mr. Trump have complained for months that they have no insight into the inner workings of the committee as it has issued dozens of subpoenas and conducted interviews behind closed doors with hundreds of witnesses.

But the public display this month of what the panel has learned including damning evidence against Mr. Trump and his allies left some Republicans wishing more vocally that Mr. Trump had strong defenders on the panel to try to counter the evidence its investigators dig up.

Would it have made for a totally different debate? Absolutely, said Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida. I would have defended the hell out of him.

Among those second-guessing Mr. McCarthys choice has been Mr. Trump.

Unfortunately, a bad decision was made, Mr. Trump told the conservative radio host Wayne Allyn Root this week. He added: It was a bad decision not to have representation on that committee. That was a very, very foolish decision.

The committee employed more than a dozen former federal prosecutors to investigate the actions of Mr. Trump and his allies in the buildup to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

With former television producers on staff, the committee has built a narrative told in chapters about the former presidents attempts to cling to power.

As it has done so, the committee has not had to contend with speechifying from the dais about Mr. Trumps conservative policy achievements. There has been no cross-examination of the panels witnesses. No derailing of the hearings with criticism of President Biden. No steering the investigation away from the former president. Ultimately, there has been no defense of Mr. Trump at all.

The committee presented considerable evidence this month of Mr. Trumps role, laying out how the former president pressured Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to unilaterally overturn his election defeat even after he was told it was illegal.

On Tuesday, the panel directly tied Mr. Trump to a scheme to put forward fake slates of pro-Trump electors and presented fresh details of how the former president sought to bully, cajole and bluff his way into invalidating his 2020 defeat in states around the country.

The committee has also used prominent Republicans as witnesses to make its case, leaving Mr. Trumps allies with an impossible task: How are they to defend him even from the outside when the evidence against him comes from Republican lawyers, a widely respected conservative judge, his campaign advisers and even his own daughter?

The effectiveness of the hearings in putting Mr. Trump at the heart of the effort to overturn the election results has drawn the attention of, among others, Mr. Trump. He has made plain this week that he wants more Republicans defending him, and is displeased as the hearings play out on national television without pro-Trump voices.

The only Republicans on the committee are two who have lined up squarely against Mr. Trump: Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. They were appointed by Ms. Pelosi, not Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. McCarthy figured in July that it was better politically to bash the committee from the sidelines rather than appoint members of his party acceptable to Ms. Pelosi. He has said he had to take a stand after she rejected two of his top picks for the panel: Representatives Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio.

Ms. Pelosi said she could not allow the pair to take part, based on their actions around the riot and comments they had made undercutting the investigation. (Mr. Jordan has subsequently been issued a subpoena by the committee because of his close dealings with Mr. Trump.) The speakers decision led directly to Mr. McCarthys announcement that Republicans would boycott the panel.

When Pelosi wrongfully didnt allow them, we shouldve picked other people, Mr. Trump said in an interview with Punchbowl News. We have a lot of good people in the Republican Party.

Mr. Trump has grumbled openly about the makeup of the panel, according to a person familiar with his remarks. Some members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus have also privately complained about the lack of pro-Trump Republicans on the panel, the person said.

Those close to Mr. McCarthy argue that the Democrats who control the committee would most likely not have allowed his nominees much power or influence over the panels work.

The hearings will pick up again on Thursday with a session devoted to Mr. Trumps effort to install a loyalist at the top of the Justice Department to carry out his demands for more investigations into baseless claims of election fraud.

The panel is planning at least two more hearings for July, according to its chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi. Those hearings are expected to detail how a mob of violent extremists attacked the Capitol and how Mr. Trump did nothing to call off the violence for more than three hours.

Asked on Tuesday about the former presidents comments about the Jan. 6 committee, Mr. McCarthy instead talked about inflation and gas prices.

They focused on an issue the public is not focused on, he said of the committee. Mr. McCarthy added that he spoke with Mr. Trump this week.

One of the Republicans whose nomination Mr. McCarthy withdrew from the committee, Representative Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, was a defense lawyer before being elected to Congress.

Ms. Pelosi had approved of Mr. Armstrong serving on the panel, along with Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois and Representative Troy Nehls of Texas.

Mr. Armstrong said he had watched the hearings as the committee laid out evidence in a choreographed, well-scripted way.

Had he been allowed to serve on the committee, he would have tried to steer the investigation and its questions at public hearings into security failures at the Capitol, he said, echoing a line of criticism that many Republicans have tried to direct at Ms. Pelosi.

It would be a lot less scripted. Wed ask questions, Mr. Armstrong said. There are real questions to be answered. My heart goes out to the law enforcement officials. They needed more people down there.

Still, he said, he stands by the decision made by Mr. McCarthy, who is considered the leading candidate to become speaker if Republicans win control of the House in the midterm elections in November.

I was in the room when we made that decision, and I still think it was the right decision, he said, arguing that House Republicans had to take a stand after Ms. Pelosi removed Mr. Jordan and Mr. Banks. I think it was the only option.

Mr. Trumps comments have sparked much discussion among House Republicans over whether it was the right decision.

Everybodys got a different opinion on that, said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. Personally, I think the leader made the right call. The minute the speaker decides who the Republican members are, it turned against the legitimacy of it.

Representative Daniel Crenshaw, Republican of Texas, said he would have preferred to see an exchange of opposing views on the panel. Let the public see how that debate goes, he said. That would have been better, of course.

But Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol and is retiring from Congress, said he saw nothing but hypocrisy and foolishness in Mr. Trumps complaints. He noted that Mr. Trump made the strategic error of opposing a bipartisan commission, with no current lawmakers involved, to investigate the attack on the Capitol.

That commission would have had to finish its work last year. Instead, Mr. Trumps miscalculation led to the creation of the House Jan. 6 committee, which is continuing to investigate him, Mr. Upton said.

Trump opposed the bipartisan commission, Mr. Upton said. Once again, hes rewriting history.

Stephanie Lai contributed reporting.

Originally posted here:
Why Some Republicans Are Second-Guessing Boycotting the Jan. 6 Panel - The New York Times

The flurry of pardon requests followed what the select committee showed was weeks of efforts by Trumps top congressional Republican defenders to spread misinformation about the results of the 2020 election. Those GOP lawmakers also helped apply pressure on the Justice Department to legitimize those false fraud claims. None of the lawmakers ever received pardons.

At an earlier hearing, the Jan. 6 panel showed an email from attorney John Eastman, one of the key architects of Trumps bid to stay in power, asking to be placed on Trumps pardon list. He, too, never received a pardon.

Later Thursday, several of the House Republicans vigorously denied asking for pardons for themselves. Gohmert said in a statement he asked for pardons for other people unrelated to Jan. 6. Perry issued his own statement reiterating his denial that he asked for a pardon: I stand by my statement that I never sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress.

Biggs wrote on Twitter the allegations were false. Jordan said he never requested a pardon but declined to say whether he ever asked for a status update.

Other Republicans criticized the committee but didnt directly deny the allegations. Greene, in a tweet, accused the committee of relying on hearsay, saying Hutchinson testified she heard about a pardon request, though she refused repeated questions from reporters on whether she ever asked for one.

Gaetz, in a tweet, simply criticized the select panel; he ignored questions late Thursday about the evidence he asked for a pardon.

Brooks, on other hand, said in a statement that the email request says it all, citing concerns that Democrats would prosecute or jail Republicans for their objections to certifying the electoral votes.

The Alabama Republican told reporters that Trump asked him to put his pardon request in writing so it can be evaluated following a post-Jan. 6 conversation and that after he sent his email, the president thought it would be best just to let it play out. I agreed with him.

The testimony about pardons also highlighted the absence of deposition evidence from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone whom the panels vice chair, Liz Cheney, has urged to testify in recent days and his deputy Patrick Philbin. Both have met informally with the committee but not figured much into the public hearings. Some testimony Thursday suggested that Philbin was on the receiving end of pardon requests.

As the select panel prepares to add new evidence to hearings next month, Chair Bennie Thompson told reporters the committee could back up its allegations about the GOP pardon bids: We can prove what we showed today.

Its fifth public hearing underscored the lengths Trump and his allies went to enlist DOJ in his effort to seize a second term after losing the election. Trumps top officials at the time acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, his deputy Richard Donoghue and former Office of Legal Counsel Chief Steven Engel described a series of increasingly desperate meetings to fend off Trumps effort to deploy DOJ in service of his effort, and an intense, ultimately successful effort to prevent him from installing a more compliant official atop the department.

He pressured the justice Department to act as an arm of his reelection campaign, Thompson said.

The panel also highlighted Trumps own direct pressure on DOJ, which escalated in the days after former Attorney General William Barr announced his resignation in mid-December 2020.

... Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen, Donoghue recalled Trump saying during a Dec. 27, 2020, meeting.

The hearing highlighted how Trumps West Wing became a haven for conspiracy theories about election fraud that he then tasked DOJ and other cabinet agencies to investigate. When the theories were debunked, Trump would fall back on new ones, often plucked from far-flung corners of the internet and laundered through pro-Trump channels until they reached the Oval Office.

You guys may not be following the internet the way I do, Trump told the officials, according to Thursdays testimony.

Donoghue described one such theory that Italian satellites had switched votes from Trump to Joe Biden as pure insanity. But the select committee also showed that Trumps newly appointed acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller called officials in Italy to inquire about the bizarre theory.

Much of the hearing emphasized how Trumps allies in Congress helped ratchet up pressure on DOJ even as the Department systematically debunked Donald Trumps election fraud claims.

The select panel showed Thursday that Perry who now chairs the House Freedom Caucus helped link Trump with Jeffrey Clark, a little-known DOJ environmental official whom Trump hoped would amplify his debunked claims of voter fraud. Perry brought Clark to the White House on Dec. 22, 2020, according to visitor logs released by the Capitol riot committee.

Trump would go as far as offering Clark the Justice Departments top job, only to back down as Rosen, Donoghue and Engel as well as Cipollone warned of a mass exodus within DOJ. Engels warning to Trump that a Clark-run DOJ would be a graveyard apparently affected Trump, the witnesses said, and he backed off the plan.

Donoghue emphasized that Trump made clear he wasnt interested in the merit of any election fraud allegations only in DOJs willingness to endorse them, then leave the rest to him and his allies. As part of that plot, Trump had pressed his DOJ leaders to issue a letter describing concerns about election irregularities in multiple states.

Clark was prepared to issue that letter, urging states to convene their legislatures and consider whether to appoint new presidential electors who would favor Trump. Clark, asked about these matters by the select committee during a deposition earlier this year, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against potential self-incrimination and claimed executive privilege.

FBI officials raided Clarks home Wednesday, a sign some select committee members saw as part of a rapidly escalating criminal inquiry against Trumps efforts to overturn the election.

In court filings connected to its investigation, the committee revealed text messages between Perry and then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in which Perry urged Meadows to elevate Clark at DOJ as quickly as possible. The two also discussed a potential deputy for Clark. The select committee has also obtained testimony that Meadows burned some papers in his office after meeting with Perry during those crucial post-election weeks.

Rosen and Donoghue also described their experiences on Jan. 6, noting that they were on the phone constantly with congressional leaders, cabinet officials, then-Vice President Mike Pence and senior White House aides. But they noted that they never heard from Trump amid the chaos.

Betsy Woodruff Swan and Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.

Read more from the original source:
Multiple House Republicans on defensive over Jan. 6 panel testimony that they sought post-riot pardons - POLITICO

On Saturday, thousands of Texas Republicans approved a new platform at the 2022 party convention in Houston, and it immediately caused a furor. In addition to a number of controversial policy planks, it also called on the state legislature to authorize a referendum on secession from the United States. Here's everything you need to know about the document and what it means:

There are 275 planks in the platform that delegates voted on over the weekend, but suffice to say it is a remarkably radical document. It advocates for protecting life from "fertilization to natural death," defines homosexuality as "an abnormal lifestyle," marriage as only between "one biological man and one biological woman," and supports eliminating sex education from schools altogether. Texas Republicans are also now on record as supporting the prosecution of teachers at any grade level who discuss sexual orientation, and banning gender affirmation surgery for anyone under 21. It also endorses a complete prohibition on abortion and supports returning prayer and the Ten Commandments to public schools and buildings. It describes any and all restrictions on gun ownership, particularly those being discussed in Congress, as "a violation of the Second Amendment and of our God-given rights."

On the political side, it calls for abolishing the direct election of U.S. Senators, nullifying Supreme Court decisions, ending birthright citizenship, repealing the Voting Rights Act, and holding an Article V convention to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. It further argues for eliminating the direct election of all statewide officials in Texas, doing so instead with a state version of the Electoral College. The document endorses former President Trump's baseless 2020 election conspiracy by referring to "acting President Biden" and claiming that he was "not legitimately elected." Will Weissert of The Associated Press said that with the platform, the Texas Republican Party "has broken new ground in its push to the far right."Conservative media outlets like Fox News, National Review, and American Greatness, on the other hand, gave the platform scant coverage.

But perhaps its most attention-grabbing line called for the state legislature to authorize a secession referendum. Early in the document, Texas Republicans called for the legislature to pass a law affirming the state's right to secede from the United States. Then in the 224th plank, it asks for a referendum in the 2023 election "to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation." The plank predictably ignited a firestorm, with many on the left half-jokingly hoping that Republicans go through with it. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank endorsed the idea and recommended a "severance package that includes Oklahoma." Others, however, were quick to point out that Texas cannot legally secede from the United States. Are they right?

Daniel Miller, author of TEXIT: How and Why Texas Will Leave the Union, argues that "there is not a single clause in the Constitution of the United States that forbids Texas, or any State, for that matter, from leaving the Union." Indeed, there is little dispute that the U.S. Constitution neither endorses nor explicitly prohibits the secession of states from the union. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, the issue was considered settled. In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the Supreme Court eliminated all ambiguity, writing that "the union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."

However, the Supreme Court commands no army. If Texas were to vote to secede next year, it would be up to the U.S. government to choose to intervene, or not. And in a sense, it might actually be advantageous for the Biden administration to let Texas walk away without a fight. After all, without the state's Electoral Votes (now up to 40 after the post-census reapportionment), neither George W. Bush nor Donald Trump would ever have become president. The state currently provides a 12-seat edge to Republicans in the struggle to control the House.

The centrality of Texas to the GOP's national political fortunes, therefore, is what makes its secession so deeply implausible. There is no world in which Republican leaders outside of Texas would support its unilateral secession especially Trump, whose bid to reclaim the presidency in 2024 would be dead in the water without the Lone Star State. And if Republicans take one or both chambers of Congress in November's midterm elections, it would likely suck most of the air out of the Texas GOP's inchoate secession plans, just as the 2018 midterms put an end to loose talk of "Calexit" on the West Coast.

A 2021 poll found substantial support for a hypothetical division of the United States into four countries, with 66 percent of Republicans in the South favoring the plan. A July 2021 survey from the University of Virginia found that 52 percent of Trump voters and 41 percent of Biden voters favored a division of the country into red and blue polities. But secessionist movements have a fairly dim track record of winning binding referenda, especially in wealthy democratic countries where it is hard to make the case that anyone is being particularly oppressed. The emotional satisfaction of imagining a velvet divorce ultimately runs headlong into the logistical, financial, and political nightmares that separation would really entail. And regional secession votes that don't have permission from the central government to take place might "succeed" but not change the territorial status quo.

Ultimately, the Texas Republican Party platform is just that an expression of ideals that aren't binding on anyone, including the state legislature. If its plans are to become reality, it is up to elected Republicans in the state to pursue them, defend them, and put them into practice.

Continue reading here:
Did Texas Republicans endorse secession at their party convention? - The Week