LVLT - Level 3

[brker_guy]

Carl, there is a segment on Fast Money called "Dancing with the Stocks"?  Oh brother!!!!  I hate to say this, but CNBC is really doing a very dis-service to its viewers who really want to be investors.  It's sad to see it.

 

You know, I see a lot of people want to beat up NFLX because of its overvaluation, but I don't think people understand the important impact that NFLX brings to the whole internet usage culture.  VIDEO is the "killer app" for BW consumption.

 

http://forrester.com/rb/Research/understanding_changing_needs_of_us_online_consumer%2C/q/id/57861/t/2

 

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/american-internet-use-catches-up-with-tv-use/?ref=technology

 

Companies like AKAM and LLNW are going to need to figure out how to compete in this space while they watch their margins bleed.  It's very humbling to see the bears brutalizing (3) the past few weeks.

 

Oh, speaking of MONOPOLISTS and OLIGOPOLISTS, look who is building a IPTV box similar to GoogleTV

 

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-comcasts-xcalibur-seeks-the-edge-on-google-tv/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/12/comcast-tests-new-way-to-navigate-tv-shows.html

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

The keyword for these monopolistic dictators, Brker_guy, is "BOX." It's their form of a chastity belt, one with a "lock" and "key" on it no less. Such restriction, based upon lack of trust which limits a person's free choice, most always results in ultimate dissatisfaction oftentimes ending bad for those attempting to have "dominion" over each other.      

 

I am "DISCOUNTING" Google T.V. in addition to any cable copy cat offering as being a "WALLED GARDEN," whereby they are attempting to "control behavior," most importantly, viewing habits. I am calling it a failure right now confirmed by Best Buy, too!

 

In a free world, one where information flows unfettered, these types of restraints will NOT STAND.

 

You must not be paying attention to me, as you overlooked my "dancing with the buffoons" commentary last night.  :-[    

 

Remember William Wallace, and "FREEDOM!"

 

[mpauls]

This is an exhaustively long thread, and I did my best to read it over so not to post a question to which there is an answer.

 

I think it would be useful to change the direction of this discussion at least for a moment.  There are plenty of reasons to have a favorable opinion about the future of Level 3, but the same can be said of many companies not (currently) earning money.  Let's ignore the talking heads and market manipulators since ultimately they become irrelevant once the economics change.

 

If you really like this company, the best way to verify the idea is to attempt to destroy the idea that Level 3 is a viable going-concern into the future.  By "viable going-concern" I mean they avoid reorganization and management stays in place.

 

to get the conversation started:

What (knowable) conditions prevent Level 3 from realizing profits 5-10 years down the road?

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Hmm....I am sorry we tired you out on this exhausting, very risky, investment thesis/thread. 

 

I think the answer to your question (knowable) lies mainly on two fronts:

 

1) Regulatory risk in favor of the status quo; similar to the imminent Comcast/(3) dispute

 

2) Technology risk, as in "Level 4," whereby fiber in our internet diets, is more than sliced and diced, but eliminated entirely

 

 

If there is a 3rd front, it resembles the 08/09 meltdown in the form of:

 

3) Economic risk X America, more than likely, one which would resemble for the masses Great Depression 2     

[Guest ValueCarl]

mpauls, herein lies the chief regulator of the regulation risk which permeates the United States at this time. Although independent of this article, they're already telegraphing his revised, less draconian "net neutrality" plan as fait accompli, what he does or doesn't do with respect to the Comcast/(3) dispute, may develop into the most crucial aspect of his "legacy." It will become more clear whether or not his talk matches his walk inclusive of "party politics." 

 

I notice that Brian Roberts of Comcast was one of the corporate chieftain attendees with Obama today, another democrat who now says that he understands it is not wise to stand in the way of business. Unless that business is "monkey business," of course, but would Obama and Julius have the cojones to confront it in favor of truly liberating the people?

 

I have my serious doubts, but we'll tune in next Tuesday to hear more talk, and probably less action!             

 

the answer to this question — which affects the flow of information and culture, the growth of the economy and the future of communications, education and democracy itself — rests largely in the hands of Julius Genachowski, a 48-year-old Jew from Long Island with knowledge of Talmud and an appointment to one of the most critical policy posts in Washington.

If his December 1 proposal to address Internet regulation is any indication, Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission since June 2009, is seeking a solution in a very Jewish way: He issued a compromise in the pitched debate over the Internet’s openness, a concept often referred to as net neutrality.

The information and communication technology sector comprises about one-sixth of America’s economy. With more business, paperwork and personal connections moving online, the matter of who can access which website, through which service, and how fast, is becoming increasingly important throughout the country, as is the ability to create new Web businesses.

The high stakes of his job — which includes complicated issues relating to the regulation of television and radio, as well as to the Internet — mean that Genachowski (pronounced jen-uh-COW-ski) spends his days threading the needle between the interests of global media concerns and grassroots activists, telecommunications corporations and think tanks, Congress and the White House. Those are tensions he may be comfortable mediating in part because he once was a Talmud ace.

“The education I was lucky enough to receive is a very important part of my background,” Genachowski, whose schooling has run the gamut from Orthodox day school to Harvard Law School, told the Forward in an interview at his Washington office. “We’re all the products of our background, and I’m sure it informs what I do in many ways.”

 

 

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/133806/#ixzz18FDfIHVY

[Guest ValueCarl]

As if "silicon economics" applied to Akamai-it doesn't-they are now attempting to "steal" another "line" from the LVLT balance sheet.

 

I tell you Brker-guy, you can't make this stuff up!

 

Although I don't disagree with the general parameters for identifying carving out the "internet's" production contributions-they should abandon "telecom terminology" in favor of "internet"-as they're attempting to do with the BLS numbers here, what they're neglecting is "APPLYING" it to the right business model. As pointed out many times, here and elsewhere, it's the LVLT MODEL which works to massively ADVANCE the US economy as a result of Silicon Economics, Moore's Law, and, "It's (3)'s margins because of their "owned" footprint, STUPID!" Woe to Akamai owners and their ilk!  >:(        

 

But is the BLS correctly tracking the prices charged for the delivery of video by content delivery networks (CDN) such as Akamai (AKAM) ? In a post titled “Deflation? Akamai Will Show You Some Deflation” Paul Kedrosky writes:

 

Check these deflationary statistics from a note on Akamai tonight by Citi’s Mark Mahaney:

 

Pricing declines:

 

2009: 40-45%

2010: 20-25%

2011(f): 15-20%

Volume increase

 

2010: 40-45%

In short, Akamai has grown revenues in a market sporting 20-25% price declines by increasing volumes by 40-45%.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/242181-reports-on-deflation-and-growth-in-the-communications-sector-inaccurate?source=yahoo

[Guest ValueCarl]

Let freedom ring while dispelling lies in the marketplace which will only harm "end users" in the end, as a result of substantiating monopolies and/or adding unnecessarily to "costs" for delivering services.   

 

Fools From Akamai Land?       

Why are FOOLS from Akamai land attempting to ascribe "SILICON ECONOMICS" to your business model?

 

It doesn't exist! You don't own a network! You're a Cluster F*** of "SERVERS" domiciled in someone else's "HOME" who has dominion over your "MARGINS" now and forever!

 

Without a doubt, it's the Level 3 Communications Network(LVLT) which benefits from SILICON ECONOMICS! Stop attempting to extrapolate false PREMISES to your model! DEFLATION will come to you as a result of "LOST SALES" in "THE TOP LINE!" IMO

 

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/242181-r...

[brker_guy]

Mr. Pauls, thank you for your thoughtful question.  I know it's a lengthy and frustration twist and turn on a company that has only been profitable a few quarters before all hell broke loose.  So, thanks for using the Charlie Munger model on us, "Invert, always invert" to get us to answer the question you want to hear.

 

As Carl has answered and raised up 3 very important facts that might help you with your question. 

 

1)  Regulatory issue is the first and foremost the important factor to LVLT's survival.  If those guys at the FCC can't see past the forest and decided to rule against net neutrality next Tuesday, LVLT's business model will be greatly impacted. Now, let's just say the ruling is against net neutrality, you will see aggressive actions by companies that have a much closer ties to the customers (i.e. Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Google) will make a big push to be closer to the customers with their own fiber pipes.  More and more, consumers are cutting the cord and go with "contents that they want and need"  That's why you are seeing initiatives like this by GOOG:

 

http://gigaom.com/2010/12/15/did-your-town-get-google-fiber-googles-not-telling-yet/

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16867681?nclick_check=1

 

Note these comments: 

“U.S. consumers pay more money for less service than many, many other nations, and I have always believed that telecom infrastructure — particularly broadband Internet — is one of the key innovation enablers. If we’re paying more for less, that’s a big problem,” Medin said. “Google can bring scale and innovation to this space, and that was enticing enough for me to turn down some things that were pretty interesting to come here and see about delivering the future."

 

That is to thawl anything that the FCC is going to do next week with net neutrality.

 

2)  Mr. Crowe has said that technonology innovation is the other factor that LVLT fears because if someone can come up with Level (2), they might be able to do damage to (3).  I don't know, but all of the articles I have read that (3)'s network is the premier one.  You don't get to be in the Smithsonean Award Winner if you are just some lamo...

 

3)  I agree with Carl on the third point.  If we have a prolong recession like we did in 2008, it could kill (3)'s existence.

 

 

Carl, regarding your comments about those crooks trying to apply the "SILICON ECONOMICS" to AKAM, I think we should let them.  You know why?  They can do for "accelerated web contents" i.e. graphics and text.  Let's see if they can do get that kind of growth with "VIDEO" and "3D" graphics.  Case and point, has AKAM or LLNW won any 3D online games lately?  I haven't seen any PR from them on that.  Let's see if either one of them can land OnLive.  HULU is slowly moving traffic away from AKAM. 

 

So, yes, all you AKAM fans, toast yourself to a wonderful year and a wonderful 2010!  Come to 2011, let's hope you have something in your back pocket because 2011 is the year of ONLINE VIDEO STREAMING, and you, AKAM fans, will be TOAST!

 

Mr. Pauls, very nice website you have!!!  My kudos to you!

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Level 3 CEO James Q. Crowe asks US officials for conditions to be placed on Comcast's proposed acquisition of NBC Universal.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-17/level-3-calls-for-conditions-to-be-imposed-on-comcast-s-nbc-acquisition.html?cmpid=yhoo

[Guest ValueCarl]

The (3) Internet Beat Goes On!

 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064625

[mpauls]

Mr. Pauls, very nice website you have!!!  My kudos to you!

 

You'll like this one better (pardon the url, it was done in haste) www.mattpauls.com

[Guest ValueCarl]

Rob Powell, of Telecom Ramblings made an interesting find this morning contained in a letter to the FCC by (3)'s COO, Jeff Storey, regarding Comcast's violation of their NDA, inclusive of misstating certain facts. Without a doubt, Comcast should find themselves in court whilst attempting to violate the intent of NDA's as they exist.   

 

One of the most interesting factoids for me is here:

 

• we both have a particularly deep understanding of each other's networks since your backbone

rides on Level3's U.S. fiber infrastructure

 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=NQ9BrFVgZ7QNf6QKPTXhHJkyzqpyS4YVvBYTcpVlhSYgLLLqzbJ0!-1443575460!-432752550?id=7020924519

[Guest ValueCarl]

(3) follows up with another public statement to clarify the Comcast issues. Q&A #8 brings home the crux of this "economic" dispute.   

 

Level 3 Comments on Comcast’s Letter to the FCC      12/21 08:26 AM

 

 

 

BROOMFIELD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Level 3 Communications, Inc. (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%) today released the following statement:

On Dec. 17, 2010, Comcast issued a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concerning Level 3’s request to the FCC and the Department of Justice to impose conditions on Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal. The letter contains misleading allegations, and many of the assertions are based on factually incorrect statements. Level 3 is releasing this Q&A in order to address the allegations and to correct the factual record.

 

Q1: Comcast has repeatedly said that “In Comcast’s experience, Level 3’s new peering proposal is unprecedented.” Is this correct?

 

A1: No, it is incorrect and misleading. The “unprecedented” action in this case has been taken by Comcast, not Level 3. To Level 3’s and third parties’ knowledge, for the first time, Comcast is demanding a payment from Level 3 for access to Comcast’s customers.1 The Level 3 “proposal” referred to by Comcast is an offer to interconnect in several cities where Comcast owns large cable systems in addition to the 10 large cities where the two companies already interconnect. Level 3 offered to carry content to these additional cities at no cost to Comcast, a solution that Level 3 believed would lower Comcast’s costs. Level 3 believes this solution is simply an extension of the existing interconnection architecture already in place between the two companies and is thus technically and economically straightforward. Comcast is mischaracterizing the offer made by Level 3 to distract attention from other, more fundamental issues.

 

Q2: Comcast says that Level 3 is insisting that “Comcast and its customers bear 100 percent of the costs of this new design, regardless of traffic flows between the parties.” Is this correct?

 

A2: No. Clearly, Level 3 would not offer to settle a dispute with Comcast by making an offer that is less desirable to Comcast than the interconnections already in place. As outlined in a letter to Comcast,2 Level 3’s proposal was meant to settle the disagreement with Comcast by interconnecting with Comcast in more locations that are closer to Comcast’s local cable networks. Level 3 made this offer solely in an attempt to address Comcast’s complaint that it would experience cost increases caused by its customers requesting more content with higher bandwidth requirements. Comcast is distorting Level 3’s offer – if Comcast had accepted our offer, the result would have been to increase Level 3’s costs and lower Comcast’s costs.

 

Q3: Comcast says, “The proposal raises significant and complex technical and economic questions that could impact both parties’ customers in uncertain ways, and represents a major and untested shift in interconnect architecture that presents feasibility, scalability, and other considerations.” Is this correct?

 

A3. Level 3 believes interconnection architectures and costs are well understood in the industry and by both Level 3 and Comcast. Level 3 and Comcast already interconnect and exchange content in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Seattle, Sunnyvale and McLean. Level 3 offered to carry content, using its own network and at no cost to Comcast, to several additional cities where Comcast’s residential customers are concentrated. We believe that this is simply an extension of the existing interconnection arrangement, and is economically and technically straightforward.

 

Q4: Comcast says that it offered to run a 45 day trial of Level 3’s offer and that “Level 3’s response to this offer was to terminate the meeting and file its December 16 letter with the FCC and to the Department of Justice – with no reference to Comcast’s good-faith offer,” and that “Level 3’s actions in this regard are in bad faith.” Is this true?

 

A4: No. This statement is false and completely misleading. Comcast neglects to mention the fact that this offer, and other matters discussed in the meeting Comcast mentions, were subject to a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”) binding on both parties.3Comcast violated the NDA; used confidential information to mislead the FCC, the Department of Justice and the public; and acted in bad faith. Level 3 has requested that Comcast correct the public record on this and other misstatements,4 but, to date, Comcast has not done so.

 

Q5: Comcast says that Level 3 wants the FCC to impose restrictions on Comcast but insists “that government oversight would be appropriate only for those parts of the Internet that Level 3 wants to define as being ’off the backbone’ – a definition designed solely to advantage Level 3 given its unique dual role as a Tier 1 provider and a CDN.” Is this correct?

 

A5: No. In addition to Level 3; ATT,5Verizon,6Global Crossing,7Qwest8 and Sprint9 all offer commercially available CDN services. Each of these companies is considered a “Tier 1” U.S. Internet backbone operator.10 There are other companies that offer combinations of IP backbone and CDN services. The market is clearly competitive. Comcast is seeking to confuse and mislead by drawing inappropriate comparisons between competitive markets and high-speed Internet access markets where Comcast has a dominant position.

 

Q6: Comcast states, “What Level 3’s new position is all about is its view that broadband Internet customers – on Comcast’s network but eventually on all ISP networks – should subsidize Level 3’s business by shouldering massive new costs imposed by Level 3.” Is this what Level 3 wants?

 

A6: Of course not. Once again, Comcast is trying to mislead and confuse. As a letter from James Crowe, CEO of Level 3, to Neil Smit, president of Comcast Cable, makes clear,11Comcast is well aware of the facts of the situation. However, to correct the record, Level 3 must point out the “massive new costs” that Comcast references are not new at all, and are the direct result of Comcast offering high-speed Internet services to its residential subscribers. Those subscribers expect that the service provided by Comcast will permit access to and delivery of all of the content lawfully available on the Internet. As use of the Internet continues to increase, and as more and richer video and other content continues to be available to consumers, all of the networks carrying Internet traffic (including Level 3’s and Comcast’s) will have to add more capacity in order to deliver service to their customers. We don’t want a subsidy from Comcast, but we also don’t want to pay a subsidy to Comcast. What we do want is for the future of the Internet to be filled with competitive content, with innovation, and with choice for consumers to see and hear what they want.

 

Q7: What about Comcast’s assertion that because Level 3 hands Comcast more content than Comcast hands to Level 3, Comcast must unfairly incur additional costs. Is this true?

 

A7: Comcast makes one factually correct observation, but then reaches an illogical and unsupportable conclusion. First, it is true that Level 3 expects to hand Comcast more content than Comcast hands to Level 3. This is because Level 3 has a substantial number of online content companies as customers and Comcast has millions of consumer Internet access customers that can only be reached through Comcast. Both Comcast and Level 3 must incur costs to carry all of the content, including movies and TV shows that require large amounts of bandwidth, which goes both to and from Comcast’s customers. Comcast is well aware of these facts.12 However; the conclusion Comcast draws is that it is unfair for Comcast to have to incur the cost to carry growing amounts of content to and from its residential customers. This position entirely ignores the fact that Comcast’s customers already pay to receive online content. Comcast advertises that its customers are entitled to receive 250 gigabytes (GB) of content per month.13 And now Comcast, with a clearly dominant position in the relevant markets, wants to charge Level 3 for what its customers already pay for. Comcast cannot, through repetition of a simplistic and misleading statement, make the conclusion true.

 

Q8: If, as Level 3 says, Comcast is trying to distract the FCC, the Department of Justice and public attention from the essential issue, what is that issue?

 

A8: The fundamental issue is this: Who gets billed as Level 3 and Comcast each seek to get a return on their increasing costs?If both Comcast and Level 3 operate in a competitive market, then the marketplace should decide. If, on the other hand, Comcast is found to have a dominant position in a market for consumer Internet access, then Comcast most certainly does not get to unilaterally decide.

 

1 “Comcast’s dispute with Level 3 arises from an abrupt change in a peering arrangement. According to accounts of the dispute appearing in the press and elsewhere, Comcast recently sought to renegotiate its contract with Level 3, demanding a recurring fee for carrying Level 3 traffic to and from Comcast broadband customers. According to many accounts, Comcast had never before requested such a fee.” (2010, December8). Letter from the New America Foundation with the Media Access Project and Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.newamerica.net/publications/resources/2010/letter_regarding_comcast_corporation_and_level_3_communications_dispute

2 “Specifically, Level 3 has offered to interconnect our networks without charge to Comcast in a way that would greatly reduce any additional Comcast expense for intercity backbone capacity. In contrast, Comcast, Level 3 and others typically charge customers, including MSOs, for this same kind of interconnection, so we believe this compromise is both technically feasible and financially beneficial to Comcast.” (2010, December 13). Letter from James Crowe, CEO of Level 3, to Neil Smit, president of Comcast Cable.

3 “Prior to engaging in efforts to resolve our differences, John Schanz and I had a discussion – at John’s request – to clarify that the discussions between us would be subject to our Nondisclosure Agreement, and that neither party would publicly disclose the offers, counteroffers and responses of the other party in these discussions.” (2010, December 17). Letter from Jeff Storey, president and COO of Level 3, to Neil Smit, president of Comcast Cable. Retrieved from http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020924519

4 “As a result, I expect that you will want to have Comcast representatives promptly correct your public and FCC statements in a manner that is at least as public as the manner in which they were initially made.” (2010, December 17). Letter from Jeff Storey, president and COO of Level 3, to Neil Smit, president of Comcast Cable. Retrieved from http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020924519

5 AT&T Corporate Website. (2010, December 20). Content Distribution.Retrieved from http://www.business.att.com/enterprise/Family/digital-media-solutions-enterprise/content-distribution-enterprise/

6 Verizon Wireless Corporate Website. (2010, December 20). Content Delivery Network.Retrieved from http://www.verizonbusiness.com/us/govt/networx/enterprise/products/content_delivery.xml

7 Global Crossing Corporate Website. (2010, December 20). Enterprise CDN Solution. Retrieved from http://www.globalcrossing.com/enterprise/cdn/cdn_landing.aspx

8 Qwest Corporate Website. (2010, December 20). Content Delivery Network Service. Retrieved from http://www.qwest.com/networx/products/ipbased/cdns.html

9 Sprint Corporate Website. (2010, December 20). Content Delivery Network Services. Retrieved from https://networx.sprint.com/content/enterprise/cdn.html

10 Wikipedia (2010, December 20). Definition Tier 1 Network. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network

11 “I will try one more time to clarify our position. I believe that there are at least some statements upon which we should be able to agree since I believe that the veracity of some are apparent to even the casual observer. Given your share of the residential Internet access market, the truth of these observations must be even more apparent to you.

Your customers want to watch increasing amounts of online video on large screens at increasingly high quality on large screens

This means increasing amounts of capacity must be installed in your network from your customer's home to the points where you interconnect with other IP networks that then interconnect with the content providers facilities

This consumer demand for online video, games and other very high bandwidth content is already a big share of traffic and is expected to dominate Internet traffic in the fairly near term

The Cisco Visual Networking Index website provides a respected third party view of this trend.

Because online video demanded by your customers has far higher bandwidth requirements than the request sent by your customer, traffic will grow rapidly and the traffic ratios at interconnection points will be increasingly unequal

Your access networks are designed with more capacity into the home versus out of the home to accommodate this reality

Comcast and Level 3 will both need to incur increasing costs to add more capacity over the lengths of our networks (We think of this capacity-length metric as bit-miles) if we wish to meet this demand.”

 

Letter from James Crowe, CEO of Level 3, to Neil Smit, president of Comcast Cable. (2010, December 13).

12 See endnote 13

13 “Are there restrictions on data consumption that apply to the Service?

The Service is for personal and non-commercial residential use only. Therefore, Comcast reserves the right to suspend or terminate Service accounts where data consumption is not characteristic of a typical residential user of the Service as determined by the company in its sole discretion. Comcast has established a monthly data consumption threshold per Comcast High-Speed Internet account of 250 Gigabytes (GB). Use of the Service in excess of 250GB per month is excessive use and is a violation of the Policy. See the Network Management page at http://www.comcast.net/terms/network/ for more information and to learn how Comcast applies this Policy to excessive use. Common activities that may cause excessive data consumption in violation of this Policy include, but are not limited to, numerous or continuous bulk transfers of files and other high capacity traffic using (i) file transfer protocol (“FTP”), (ii) peer-to-peer applications, and (iii) newsgroups. You must also ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other person's use of the Service, nor represent (as determined by Comcast in its sole discretion) an overly large burden on the network. In addition, you must ensure that your use of the Service does not limit or interfere with Comcast's ability to deliver and monitor the Service or any part of its network. If you use the Service in violation of the restrictions referenced above, that is a violation of this Policy. In these cases, Comcast may, in its sole discretion, suspend or terminate your Service account or request that you subscribe to a version of the Service (such as a commercial grade Internet service, if appropriate) if you wish to continue to use the Service at higher data consumption levels. Comcast may also provide versions of the Service with different speed and data consumption limitations, among other characteristics, subject to applicable Service plans. Comcast's determination of the data consumption for Service accounts is final.” (2010, December 20). Comcast Acceptable Use Policy for High-Speed Internet. Retrieved From: http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/HighSpeedInternetAUP.html

About Level 3 Communications (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%)

Level 3 Communications, Inc. (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%) is a leading international provider of fiber-based communications services. Enterprise, content, wholesale and government customers rely on Level 3 to deliver services with an industry-leading combination of scalability and value over an end-to-end fiber network. Level 3 offers a portfolio of metro and long-haul services, including transport, data, Internet, content delivery and voice. For more information, visit www.Level3.com.

© Level 3 Communications (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%) , LLC. All Rights Reserved. Level 3, Vyvx, “From Creation to Consumption,” Level 3 Communications (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%) and the Level 3 Communications Logo are either registered service marks or service marks of Level 3 Communications (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%) , LLC and/or one of its Affiliates in the United States and/or other countries. Level 3 services are provided by wholly owned subsidiaries of Level 3 Communications, Inc. (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%) Any other service names, product names, company names or logos included herein are the trademarks or service marks of their respective owners.

Forward-Looking Statement

Some of the statements made in this press release are forward looking in nature. These statements are based on management’s current expectations or beliefs. These forward looking statements are not a guarantee of performance and are subject to a number of uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside Level 3’s control, which could cause actual events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the statements. The most important factors that could prevent Level 3 from achieving its stated goals include, but are not limited to, the current uncertainty in the global financial markets and the global economy; disruptions in the financial markets that could affect Level 3’s ability to obtain additional financing; as well as the company’s ability to: increase and maintain the volume of traffic on the network; successfully integrate acquisitions; develop effective business support systems; defend intellectual property and proprietary rights; manage system and network failures or disruptions; develop new services that meet customer demands and generate acceptable margins; adapt to rapid technological changes that lead to further competition; attract and retain qualified management and other personnel; and meet all of the terms and conditions of debt obligations. Additional information concerning these and other important factors can be found within Level 3’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Statements in this press release should be evaluated in light of these important factors. Level 3 is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any such obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Source: Level 3 Communications (LVLT:$0.9727,$0.0029,0.30%) 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, Phantoms and Yahooligans are at it again. They are casting great palls of doubt on (3) attempting to create that "sell atmosphere." I can hear their drums beating.  Certain agents are writing me privately, always incoherently with a deep negative slant, before sharing similar negativity back in Yahooligan Land.

 

If only there was a way to banish these miscreants from planet earth. If only the regulators knew or cared to stamp out evil!  >:(   

[Guest ValueCarl]

(3) may be having a positive effect on legislators' decision making processes. It's about time our countrymen at the highest levels woke up! This is a good thing. imo

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2210096420101222?feedType=RSS&feedName=mergersNews&rpc=43

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, Comcast's lawyer in a response plea to (3)'s FCC letter, included mentioning the wireless FCC czar in her scathing criticism of (3), as though (3) was a monopolist. That lawyer should get together with Joe Waz's favorite Comcast engineer. Together, they can bang their rings through the pounding of their hand on the table in order to have their way!

 

What value do you think they're finding via the inclusion of, Ms. Sharon Gillett, someone who they make certain to mention in their letter to the FCC secretary?

 

http://blog.broadband.gov/?authorId=88083

 

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcasts-responds-to-level-3s-fcc-filing.html

[Guest ValueCarl]

(3) Enables E-911 solutions or "Enhanced" 911 solutions for next generation cable and phone digital telephony including Voip and mobile phones to be located by the exact geographic position of the caller. They have been working with Congress and local municipalities including first responder organizations for police, fire and emergency medical technicians( EMT's) for well over six years now.

 

The FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, in his video below is still expected in December to unveil tomorrow's communications tools that (3) solved many years ago, or yesterday. When one continues to ponder the cost to "The American People" that last mile "control" by monopolists in telecom and cable have caused, one begins to realize the disservice these businesses have provided to their customers for too many decades and centuries now!

 

http://blog.broadband.gov/?categoryId=13853

 

Here's a former (3) executive, Ron Vidal, lecturing a deaf, mute and indifferent Congress on the merits of American innovation back in 2004! Like me said, these numb nuts in the Halls of Congress better start waking up or we will be doomed! imo

 

 

It wasn't long ago that VoIP occupied the fringes of the telecom world -- as a niche application of interest only to hard-core technologists," Vidal said in remarks prepared for the hearing. "Recently, however, VoIP has been able to replicate the quality of the public switched telephone network at far lower cost, while delivering new features and functionality not possible over older, legacy network systems.

"But the fate of Voice over IP does not rest with market forces or technology advancements alone. As most members of Congress know, government regulators will exercise significant influence over how VoIP technologies are deployed. I'm confident that technology questions will be answered by the market, but many remaining questions reside in the regulatory arena."

Vidal urged members of Congress to use "a light hand" as they consider legislation on Voice over IP. "Congress should not force-fit VoIP into outmoded regulatory constructs devised for the PSTN, at a different time in history and to protect consumers from monopolies," he said. "In particular, the existing inter-carrier compensation regime creates irrational economic incentives that distort the market. In order to truly maximize the benefits of VoIP, a free-market economic model must be put in place."

But Vidal noted that VoIP service providers have an obligation to support the important social policies that regulators have identified as being in the public interest, including Universal Service funding, E911, access for the disabled and the CALEA wiretapping statute. "It's entirely appropriate for government to enact rules for VoIP service providers in these important areas," Vidal said.

"With the history of computing and the Internet as a guide, extraordinary innovations are on the horizon for VoIP," Vidal said. "For example, we have a vision for how VoIP can improve E-911 by providing first responders with more accurate information as incidents develop, in ways that the PSTN simply can't match. Furthermore, VoIP shows promise as a 'killer app' that will drive broadband penetration by enhancing the consumer value of broadband Internet service.

"American companies, entrepreneurs and our capital markets have always been in the vanguard of technology innovation. Today, they are again poised to lead the way in VoIP, with new technologies and applications that will fundamentally change how we communicate. To be successful, however, these innovators and investors require a stable regulatory environment. Remember, our leadership in computers, software and the Internet largely developed with little government regulation. I urge you to treat broadband and VoIP in much the same way. Congress has a real opportunity today to help foster an environment that will ensure the country's long history of innovation continues with VoIP."

 

http://m2m.tmcnet.com/news/2004/jul/1054772.htm

[Guest ValueCarl]

FCC Chairman proposes approval of Comcast/NBCU merger with some stipulations. FYI

 

WSJ: FCC Comcast/NBC Proposal Has Conditions On Access, Online Video      12/23 06:43 AM

 

 

 

-

 

  (MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires

  12-23-100943ET

  Copyright © 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[Guest ValueCarl]

If I am reading this board's persona, longinvestor, as being right on other venues, it appears that he has connected Comcast's reference plea in their letter to Ms. Sharon Gillett, the FCC's wireless czar, as being Comcast's interest in maintaining their influence over the Clearwire stake they maintain in the Wimax space. If he's right, "Justice" should reign on that parade Comcast is attempting to control unfairly.  :-X 

[20ppy]

On a separate note, Apple's iTV that enables 99 cents per movie type of business model, will put much bigger bandwidth demand on the internet, in addition to NFLX. Is LVLT well positioned to ride the incoming tide?

[Guest ValueCarl]

If there is one thing I have abandoned in favor of more factual business news the past few years, it has been that circus show on CNBC in favor of Bloomberg. Comcast's win in this regard, won't be garnering my eyeballs be it from text, or video, except on rare occasion moving ahead.

 

It used to be Sargent Friday of the long ago t.v. drama series, "Dragnet," who said,  “Just the facts ma’am”. I think Bloomberg's news delivery service follows this mantra, and is representative of its stoic founder, N.Y.C. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has always struck me as a straight, hardcore businessman.    

 

Brker_guy, I sure hope you come back to play and answer that Apple iTV question by 20ppy.

 

Comcast Corp. must agree to let subscribers view online video from competitors to win approval from regulators to buy NBC Universal, according to proposed conditions outlined by a U.S. agency today.

 

Comcast also must sell programs to rivals, and allow competing programmers to reach its video subscribers, said officials at the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing the deal.

 

The conditions are among recommendations FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sent to fellow commissioners, agency officials said during a telephone news conference in Washington.

 

Genachowski has concluded that the deal, with conditions, satisfies the public-interest standard Comcast must meet, the officials said. The officials declined to be individually identified because the proposal hasn’t been made public.

 

FCC commissioners -- three Democrats including Genachowski and two Republicans -- can accept, strengthen or dilute the conditions before the agency votes on the merger. The officials said they weren’t sure when the vote would take place.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/comcast-to-get-fcc-conditions-today-for-completing-nbc-universal-takeover.html

 

 

 

[brker_guy]

Merry Christmas everyone! 

 

Carl, sorry for not being for a long while. Where I'm at now, there is very limited Internet connections (Imagine that). So I'm at an Internet cafe logging in to check on the latest updates on our beloved company. Seems like more drama broke out since I left the states eh?  Also, the FCC came out with a ruling on net neutrality eh?  Nice to see that.

 

I have downloaded all of the links and will read them the next few days. I will post more when my Internet connections are a little more accessible.

 

I am happy to see that the FCC are setting conditions on the NBC/Comcast buyout. Let's hope that Comcast don't play dirty and throttle their customers' traffic who are accessing NFLX video or even their Apple video one day.  Knowing and seeing how these Comcast crooks have twisted the facts during this tussle with LVLT, I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. Let's see if the FTC will have a say in this buyout 

 

As for APPL offering movie streaming services, we all should embrace it and hope that they really do offer it.  When that days come, the relationship of AKAM and APPL will be tested bc I don't think AKAM can handle video traffic from all APPL users who are in the hundred of million users now.

 

Then, we will see what AAPL will do about about their last mile service delivery guarantee. Cheers, folks! 

 

Happy 2011!

[Guest ValueCarl]

Oppenheimer has a very perverted view of how this plays out for Comcast even while in real time, their positive expectation spins for "regulatory relief" is "potentially" being shunned as I write. Pages four and five of their report offer glimpses into that.

 

At the same time, they're endorsing a horizontal business model, as the winning formula-LVLT's long standing prediction from Day 1-yet they refuse to notate Comcast's move to "vertically integrate" into becoming a "content owner." Quite the oxymoron from such "masters of the universe."

 

Anecdotally speaking, from a cable cord cutter's perspective, I am seeing naked internet connection opportunities between a cable and/or telecom player in the last mile. They're trading the same or fixed number of subs back and forth every day!  The change speed at which un-tethering might occur in the current environment is being vastly "discounted" by Opp. From my perspective, the speed at which consumers disassociate themselves with such dumbed down "bundles," can't occur soon enough!  

 

I also notice that, they grade my "Beautiful Blonde" an F, while giving all the surrounding harlots who must have her for services, B's or better! imo

 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12d05e4036aaf769&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D32fa22e323%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12d05e4036aaf769%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbSQ_g_iyPFGwp0u6Nh4WIVwN_QpKg  

[Guest ValueCarl]

Sears/Kmart launches video on demand. What a trend to be (3)'s friend.

 

<It's easiest to see this as a defensive measure against Amazon and Wal-Mart, which purchased the highly regarded Vudu streaming video service in early 2010. DVD sales are down from their record highs, and Blu-ray sales haven't taken their place. If the future of home video is in streaming — and that is looking quite likely — every company with business at home will want a piece.  >

 

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/28/5726263-searskmart-launches-video-on-demand-service

 

http://alphaline.roxionow.com/AboutUs-Alphaline.aspx

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/28/sears-enters-online-movie-streaming-biz/

 

Interestingly, back in 04, right before Kmart purchased Sears, LVLT had won the Sears account nationally with CSC as their system integrator(SI). Subsequent to that merger, there seemed to be some dissatisfaction with (3)'s services or the SI coordinating the project which killed the deal. Although I can't say for sure, it may have been the actual "merger" itself which shelved the plans of the prior Sears management.

 

http://www.telephonyworld.com/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?category=all&id=1091582365  

 

 

I am sure Brker_guy can comment more, but this is certainly something that (3) should be facilitating in the "enterprise space." They could or may have even gone "direct" today. imo

 

http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=47

 

 

 

[Cardboard]

We are starting to get some real attention.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204467204576048110913769584.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

 

This is not much different than precious metals and other things that were considered in large oversupply for a very long time. Eventually things tighten, but it seems to take a long time for the market to adjust its thinking or to realize that supply may no longer match demand as it has for so many years. Then you see a nice orderly price adjustment upward to be followed by a panic.

 

Cardboard