LVLT - Level 3

[Guest ValueCarl]

Interesting that it stated 31 Mbps before running Hulu, and with it running in the back ground it went down to 29 Mbps. This was during off peak hours very early this morning, for example. My prior latency problem or throttling was experienced on Wednesday night during "prime time" internet hours after 8 P.M. Right now(11:00 A.M. PST), without running the program it is stating 28.95 Mbps and showing 18.18 Mbps while running the program simultaneously. Just went back to 28.91 Mbps. The stream doesn't appear latent so far. I will have to apply this principle more in line with prime time internet hours, and I will report back.

 

We can not allow these cable moguls to throttle back on us against prepaid service commitments they have agreed to in flat rate prices. If it's that consortium crew causing the latency, inclusive of that scoundrel Murdoch, as well as The Roberts Family at Comcast, etc., I will be surprised considering the stupidity behind them harming their "streams" out of territories where "mind shares" will be lost at the same time difficult to restore.     

[brker_guy]

Gents/Ladies(if there are any here), let's all drink one for Mr. Buffett tonight.

 

He has gotten rid of that monopolist known as Comcast from the BRK's portfolio.  Joy to the world, finally!

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Warren-Buffetts-Berkshire-cnbc-1228708011.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[Guest ValueCarl]

For the record, and my own learning experience, I have now confirmed that Nasdaq's share count always excludes "convert bonds" and apparently, "options" too, since that although we see a reduction on SEAM, and an UNC for Fairfax, both 13G filings year over year, show additional shares with the aforementioned securities and/or derivatives included.

 

Don't start making me think that Lou Simpson was Homer's brother, now, Brker_guy!  ;D

 

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=LVLT&selected=LVLT&FormType=Institutional

[brker_guy]

Carl, good catch!  I always have respect for Mr. Simpson.  I actually met him a few times.  His office used to be located near where I used to live. 

 

BTW: Did you catch LLNW's earnings last night?

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Limelight-NetworksR-Reports-pz-1790415724.html?x=0&.v=1

 

Did you hear what their CEO said about having to "lease" their network in order to transport contents?  Could have fooled me!

[Guest ValueCarl]

"There they go again," Brker_guy! Not only do these FOOLS have the audacity to steal Sunit Patel's patented "secret sauce" line, but they go on to DISS (3) and recommend both LLNW and AKAM in the middle of everything which is favorable and points to (3) including but not limited to CSCO's bandwidth growth predictions!

 

I missed the LLNW hoopla stuff, but got a whiff from some reading that the Goldman operative, Cramer, was pumping it inclusive of having the CEO talk about a 90 day window to turn up Netflix services going forward. With Goldman's control stake there, you would expect just what we saw today including some analyst who chose to avoid talking about any "financial metrics" at all, with the exclusive purpose of driving the stock higher!

 

I bet our stock could rise to the stratosphere if an analyst, Goldman or otherwise, would abandon "financial metrics" for valuing. That's what they're doing with Facebook, Twitter, and other internet ilk of that kind, though, right?  >:( Fifty billion valuation to ride our backbone and continue their "social experiment," you think!

 

This nonsense needs to end, is all I can say.  >:( One of the climax parts to an ending I have always envisioned, would be the arrest of Cramer on his own show with that Bozo being carted away screaming instead of writing, this is "BULL!," to the SEC again. We can still dream, right?

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/15/limelights-secret-sauce-is-not-what-you-think.aspx

 

The market is big enough for several cowboys. Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO) predicts exponential bandwidth growth over at least the next five years, and these companies are an important part of the solution to the threat of a bandwidth crunch.  

[brker_guy]

I know...I know...  It is very frustrating.  When I read that article, my jaw dropped to the floor.  I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  It gets better, Carl.  Have a listen of our favorite analysts sounding off on LLNW.  Note her words of LLNW's winning of business from AKAM via NFLX...  I can't believe Wall St. would pay analysts millions of dollars for putting out sound bites like this.  I must have done something wrong with my career. Sigh. :) :)

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-15/d-a-davidson-s-jaegers-discusses-limelight-networks-audio.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

This is a very good post on our old stomping grounds:

 

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/january-2011-online-video-usage-up-45/

 

So, here is my question for you since both you and I have a common hatred for those crooks at GS as well as their golden boy, loudmouth alum...  My question is this:  Would you rather have those crooked GS in your corner or would you have Prem/SEAM/Thornburg in our corner?

 

 

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, you are going to put me through a great test as if I haven't had enough. I should have known it was coming!  ;D

 

The answer is as follows: 

 

You are right. Like you, I disdain criminal thugs in powerful positions with or without high I.Q.'s stealing public funds through public market participants. They should be held to the highest standards and be made to pay the most severe prices when they violate their fiduciary responsibilities. At the same time, I am intimately aware that there needs to be a fine balance between opposing parties, long or short, when embarking upon securities analysis. Layered on top of such a fine balancing act is something called ethical egoism, which since I believe in it, is considered normal behavior for one to do what is in their self-interest assuming it's legal and not bordering on the edges of grey vs. black and white principles. On a side note, I believe Mr. Buffett acted this way all throughout the crisis considering what was at stake, and still may be, I might add. 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism 

 

So, all that in a nutshell, I am left with a deep understanding why the management team as well as their investors have acted or behaved in this long haul story called Level 3 Communications. Each has done what is normal to survive during "difficult times." (3) managers have keep interest alive by remaining public and have acted ethically especially considering "accounting" and maneuvering around "covenants," while the (3) investors who you mention have protected their owners' interests in the way they had to according to their adept skills at financial engineering. It hasn't left less important shareholders who must remain out of the loop for such "sweet heart deals" happy, but I believe at least the first two whom you mention, remain trustworthy and would benefit a great deal more with equity in tact, while (3) succeeds at capitalizing on the market opportunities I also believe are (3)'s to take. Obviously, I prefer them while hoping I am right about their underlying motives for financing this future "growth stock" again.         

 

 

On the other hand, because I know the machinations which were incorporated to destroy value "illegally" by the other side, I maintain zero respect for them and their ilk.

 

Does that help to answer your question, Brker_guy? 

 

Recently, I have been revisiting "Alan Parsons Project" music I once enjoyed during my youth. So, I hope I have provided you with enough "Psycho Babble" today?  ;D

 

[brker_guy]

Carl, that's what I thought you would answer too.  BTW: Thanks for sharing the Ethical egotism link.  I have not heard of such term before, but I will surely learn.  I agree with you completely on that.  We can only hope that management at (3) along with the top two shareholders (Prem and SEAM) will do the right thing for us minion shareholders in the long run.  There are many times I would turn to Cramer and hear him rant about a certain company which I know who is pumping for some entity behind him and which is completely false, but instead of grabbing the closest thing to me and hurl it at my LED TVs in anger for his lies,  I decide to put the audio on mute and just be happy to see lightening and flashes of quotrons running by. 

 

In due course and due time, we will have our days in the sun.  It has been a very brutal 2.5 years, but we will come out of this.  Now I see why the company is deciding to invest heavily into infrastructure now.  When those "true" HD videos really hit, it's like a Tsunami.

 

Well you brought me back to your younger days with Alan Parsons Project; let me bring you back to my old playground when I used to idolize one of my childhood heroes, Magic Johnson.

Do you see this deal here?

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/02/time-warner-cable-has-struck-a-massive-deal-with-the-los-angeles-lakers-to-create-two-new-regional-sports-channels-that-wil.html

 

The 20-year agreement between the cable giant and the National Basketball Association powerhouse is a major blow to Fox Sports West and KCAL-TV, the two current rights holders for the Lakers.

 

I think we are about to see a wave of private deals like this from content coming because those MSOs like TWC and Comcast won't be sitting idling by.  This is their way of locking onto consumers and fan base to steer them from OTTC(Over-The-Top-Contents).  Speaking of OTTC, recently, a mysterious industry journal showed up at my house from Penner Media.  In the front was a cover story about Netflix asking the question, "Can Netflix kill Cable Co?"  Inside were interviews given by folks who used to invest in cable or cable media related companies, and they came away with an answer of "No Way". 

 

So, this deal btw the Lakers and the TWC will be the start of a rush to Dutch auction by the last mile guys to lock up local contents from proachers like Hulu, YouTube and Netflix...

 

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Great article and assessment of changing trends on your part, Brker_guy. For me, I think the best thing the consumer can do for themselves, would be the boycotting of such expensive propositions sports or otherwise. I am an alien hardly interested in following the herd or crowd behavior, however. Until people in mass-critical mass audiences-become more comfortable with themselves, and their ability to think independently and ask questions about why and how they follow traditions, even watching basketball games, for example, the most potent effects of the internet will not be attained. If it were up to these distributors, the same traditional dumbed down box that has mesmerized the people during the past sixty years, would convert onto the net. A battle must be waged against such stupidity! Considering that shorter white men can't jump, I may be out of my league here!  ;D

 

<However, Time Warner Cable's Witmer said the move to get into business with the Lakers is part of its overall desire to "control our economic destiny."

 

Consumers may feel some pain as a result of the deal. Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) are generally some of the most expensive programming for distributors. Typically, RSNs cost between north of $2.50 per month, per subscriber. Given the high cost of the Lakers, Time Warner Cable will likely be looking for north of $3.50.>

[Guest ValueCarl]

Oh my! Donna was having breathing problems on this call even acting a little sheepish in the beginning, Brker_guy.  ;D The host is always great and hits her hard and fast with questions, as well as terms but Donna early on, had to dig down deep in order to muster up enough courage to speak on behalf of Goldman over her historically favorite Akamai clan. But again, she is reiterating like Akamai has continued to all along; "value added, valued added, value added," with the embedded "advertising" revenue punch attached by implication. I'm thinking if they close their eyes, and click their heels three times while saying this, they will all go back to Kansas with Donna and live happily ever after!  ;)   

 

For the record, over time, I have always asked (3) about their ability to garner a portion of ad revenues for their services. In the past, there were nebulous inclusions of ad revenues being part of the growth rates embedded in CDN as part of slide shows. With all those damn patents across their network, and "value added services" they supply, we can still dream of some sharing relationship which makes carrier economics more fairly weighted than historically, I hope.   

[brker_guy]

Now you know why I said, "let me bring you back to my old playground when I used to idolize one of my childhood heroes, Magic Johnson."

 

One of the saddest days that I had to witness as a sport fan of any kind was when the day Magic announced he had contracted the HIV virus.  I think had he not been infected with that, he and my childhood team would have won a few more NBA rings which neither MJ or Kobe could pass.  The old MJ was all about "TEAM-WORK".  So, the day I stopped watching and following the Lakers was when they decided to import Shaq, and then he and Kobe started to behave like two 13-years old playing ball in the backyard.  That's neither here nor there.  

 

Fasting forward to the current, I think we are the inflexion point of change on how we view contents and how we obtain contents.  These last mile duopolists (telco and MSO) want us to continuing pay for those "toll roads" which make us dumb and oblivious.  Both WebTV and GoogleTV were very nice attempts at getting OTTC to the users, but we need MORE of WebTV and GoogleTV to break down these dedicated content distribution medium via the likes of MSG, Yes Network and now "Lakers Network".  

 

That's why I went out and invested in a Roku box.  I don't want any of these duopolists to control what I am watching, viewing or reading.  So, Google Guys, please listen to my plead:

 

REVAMP your GoogleTV initiative!  Make it GoogleTV 2.0!  Heck, call it any way you want(Gingerbread, Honeycomb, even Latte).  Make GoogleTV better to allow consumers to pick and choose contents...  Carpe Diem!!!

[brker_guy]

Carl, did you see this news today being called for by Mrs. Hillary Clinton?  Let's hope that LVLT gets some of this work in providing network services?

 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/clinton-puts-internet-freedom-at-forefront-of-u-s-foreign-policy/

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

I wish I saw the spend commitment more than I see the call for tight security in order to protect rogue ambassadors of trade , possibly against the best interests of their citizens. For you see, I believe in "checks and balances" for all political representatives including the ones traversing the globe in the name of "nation building." Either way, however, the US GOVT. would establish their best line of defense, security or otherwise, with (3)'s pipes and service layers. Not a fan of Billary, I am sorry to say.  :(

[txlaw]

It hasn't left less important shareholders who must remain out of the loop for such "sweet heart deals" happy, but I believe at least the first two whom you mention, remain trustworthy and would benefit a great deal more with equity in tact, while (3) succeeds at capitalizing on the market opportunities I also believe are (3)'s to take. Obviously, I prefer them while hoping I am right about their underlying motives for financing this future "growth stock" again.         

 

Nice to see this.  :)

[gaf63]

The FCC chairman before a house committee said that the new net neutrality rules dont cover the

dispute between Comcast and Level 3, and dont change anything with existing peering arrangeme

He said this issue is a private business dispute between the two and hopes they work it out.

(from the Dow Jones newswire)

 

Looks like the last mile providers have prevailed

[gaf63]

By Amy Schatz Of The Wall Street Journal  WASHINGTON--Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said the agency's new rules on Internet lines don't cover disputes like the continuing issue between Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and Level 3 Communications Inc. (LVLT) about fees charged to deliver Internet traffic. The agency's new "net neutralty" rules don't "change anything with existing peering arrangements" like the Comcast-Level 3 arrangement, Genachowski said Wednesday during a House subcommittee hearing. He called the Comcast-Level 3 issue a private business dispute and said he hoped the two companies could work out their differences. Last December, Level 3 complained to the FCC that Comcast wanted increased fees to deliver Internet traffic to the cable giant's customers and that the proposal violated net neutrality principles. Level 3 operates a national Internet network that helps companies deliver videos and other data to customers more quickly. The Colorado-based company signed an agreement with Netflix Inc. last year to help deliver its popular streaming video service. Comcast defended its move, saying that Level 3 was creating an imbalance on its network by delivering significantly more traffic to its subscribers and that is why it needed to charge higher fees. Public-interest groups backed Level 3's complaint and said that it was an example of why the U.S. needs rules on Internet lines to prevent large Internet providers like Comcast from using their market power to hurt competitors. Earlier this week, AT&T Inc. (T) and the cable association's lobbying group asked the FCC for reassurance that the agency's new net neutrality rules don't apply to disputes like the one between Comcast and Level 3 or other large, backbone Internet lines. -

 

Here is the whole newswire

[brker_guy]

Earlier this week, AT&T Inc. (T) and the cable association's lobbying group asked the FCC for reassurance that the agency's new net neutrality rules don't apply to disputes like the one between Comcast and Level 3 or other large, backbone Internet lines.

 

I wonder how this meeting went last week btw the T-Rex and MSO's lobbying group and the FCC.  It amazes me what second-class politicians we have running this country....

[Guest ValueCarl]

I received a message from a smarter young one stating that, it would probably be best for (3) to shut down their internet services to Comcast at about this time, and test their customers' conviction to go without a Netflix stream in boycotting this "toll," yes, this "taxation without representation." It's a smart way to test what this high priest at the FCC is willing to do or not do, to be or not to be, while he seems to be showing his true colors by siding with these MONOPOLISTS inappropriately. The power, influence and control that is being wielded at the FCC to their friends in the last mile, today, is against the best interests all all freedom seeking, liberty chasing people. 

 

If it's an individual business dispute as he says, then (3) has its own rights to stop "delivering traffic" as a result of their disagreement with Comcast's terms.

 

And, if his greatest hopes are not realized, what is he going to do next? 

 

<He called the Comcast-Level 3 issue a private business dispute and said he hoped the two companies could work out their differences.>

[Guest ValueCarl]

For Genachowski not to command the mental capacity in discerning the economic differences outlined in this dispute, one that will ensure a more cost effective internet user experience moving ahead, is an insult to The Peoples intelligence which should trigger the loss of his head as a leading authority! 

 

This is way too smart of a man who is acting like a whore master in the back rooms where these dirty deeds for influential friends are being worked out.

[brker_guy]

Carl, I have to tell you.  I am MUCH MORE UPSET at these buffoons at the FCC than I am at any pumping analysts, putting out raving reports on our competition, and even more upset than any vindictive liars who currently are on our old stomping ground, making up stories about (3). 

 

The level of intelligence, that these buffoons exhibit to arrive at the conclusion that this is not a "net neutrality" issue but a business issue,  is down right baffling to me.  This is STUNNING STUPIDITY beyond comprehension!

 

Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore was right all along.  We really do have second-rate citizens serving in high offices and be given important responsibilities of caring for our country. 

[Guest ValueCarl]

I think it's more than that, Brker_guy. Much more than that! Dr. Byrne has chronicled in great detail the inner eye of corruption on Wall Street which transcends into most political lives, as well as the government sponsored regulatory bodies which are born from them.

 

In the case of the FCC, you needn't do much research on the educational back ground of this high priest-I believe I posted it here before-Genachowski, to know how damn smart he is. Smart enough to keep giving the media power brokers who "control" the messages towards their PEOPLES "mind share" a constant leg up which equates to ten legs down in progress for "The American People."

 

Until the People are really willing to sacrifice, and march these SOB's out of their positions and perches, we remain destined for mediocrity, if not, sub par performance.

 

Mr. Buffett needs to wake up regarding these principles too! Forget what I said! He's very much awake, but acting via ethical egoism which is ingrained in his capitalistic soul.  imo    

[Guest ValueCarl]

Rob Powell over at Telecom Ramblings made a nice find regarding Level 3's SVP, Robert Yates' response tied to Genachowski's comments yesterday. I think the younger generation advice I heard yesterday, is embedded in the last sentence.

 

For you see, "BUSINESS DISPUTES" can be worked out any way competing parties with or without "LEVERAGE" choose to incorporate. I hope that Netflix steps up to the plate with Level 3, and appeals to their important customers surrounding the outrageous atrocities Comcast is attempting to burden them with.

 

If handled in the proper way, the cable cord cutting that might ensue against COMCAST, could pale "The Boston Tea Party" revolt while comparing the SPEED at which a business enterprise compared to a NATION, would FALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMO   

 

"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski testified on Wednesday before the House Communications and Internet Subcommittee on a number of matters, including the FCC’s recently-issued Open Internet Order. Unfortunately, some of the media has mischaracterized what Chairman Genachowski said about the Order and how it may relate to the pending dispute between Level 3 and Comcast over Comcast’s requirement that Level 3 pay Comcast to deliver content, such as movies, requested by Comcast’s Internet subscribers.

 

“At the hearing, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked Chairman Genachowski whether the new Open Internet Order governs the Level 3/Comcast dispute. In responding, Chairman Genachowski was careful to say that he did not have an opinion about that, pointing out accurately that the Level 3/Comcast dispute is not yet before the FCC and that the FCC has collected no facts about the dispute. Instead, he stated that the Open Internet Order does not affect ‘peering agreements,’ but does regulate Internet access service provided to consumers and small businesses.

 

“The Comcast/Level 3 dispute is not about a peering agreement, because Level 3 does not have a peering agreement with Comcast. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to take Chairman Genachowski’s statement that the Open Internet Order is unrelated to peering agreements and turn it into an implication by Chairman Genachowski that the Open Internet Order does not relate to the Comcast/Level 3 dispute. In fact, Chairman Genachowski took great pains to avoid such an implication, correctly stating that the Comcast/Level 3 dispute is not yet before the FCC and that the FCC has gathered no facts about it.  To the contrary, Level 3 was encouraged by Chairman Genachowski’s observation that the Open Internet Order applies to Internet service to consumers and small businesses, the very service that Comcast is using to extract a fee from content owners and their carriers as a condition to delivering the content that Comcast’s subscribers request.

 

“Level 3 is considering whether to formally bring the dispute before the FCC by filing a complaint with the Commission under the Open Internet Order. Level 3 is also considering other options to prohibit Comcast from assessing a fee on content that is requested by Comcast’s subscribers.”

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

It wasn't that long ago when I determined the RED BOX business model to be unsustainable and directed their upper management team to speak with one of (3)'s sharper tools in finance, as a first step, someone who I had garnered much respect for over the years. I was tired of waiting on supermarket lines, even to return videos sometimes! Then I kept thinking about the poor people on the right coast whose weather patterns might have them freezing their butts off in the bitter cold for access into those RED BOXES falsely expecting warmth for their waits! :D 

 

Without a doubt, the best laid VIDEO OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL ROADS lead to (3)!

 

Brker_guy, where is the announcement to ensure these Walmart, Vudu, Amazon bases are covered? If (3) does NOT facilitate their goals, I will be greatly surprised as well as disappointed. Truth be known; however, if they want their "STREAM" to last without LAGS while offering the best of breed customer experience, then they must partner with "The Network Partner You Can Rely On!"  ;D

 

Redbox CEO says company is getting closer to streaming videos [The Seattle Times]       02/16 08:59 PM

 

 

 

Feb. 16--Saying it wants to become America's top movie-rental destination, Redbox is working on a subscription streaming service that could put it head to head against dominant player Netflix (NFLX:$238.16,00$0.4375,0.18%) .

President Mitch Lowe told analysts Wednesday in San Francisco that Redbox is getting closer to finding an online partner to help it compete for a growing number of customers who prefer to watch digital versions of movies and TV shows on Internet-connected devices.

Redbox, which is owned by Bellevue-based Coinstar (CSTR:$45.41,00$2.11,004.87%) , plans to bundle physical disc rentals with an unlimited streaming offer, Lowe said in a presentation.

"What we're looking for is a partner that, yes, has customers, but also more importantly has a lot of quality entertainment rights," he said.

Analysts speculate that possible partners include Wal-Mart (WMT:$54.74,00$0.1900,0.35%) , which owns online-movie service Vudu and already works with Redbox as an outlet for its dollar-a-day disc-rental machines. Another possibility is Amazon.com (AMZN:$187.63,00$1.01,000.54%) , which reportedly has been talking with Hollywood studios about a Netflix (NFLX:$238.16,00$0.4375,0.18%) -style subscription streaming service.

Redbox began discussing the outlines of a digital strategy nearly a year ago. Lowe said a new streaming service would need to support "what you get" at Redbox's 30,000 self-service machines. Because a typical Redbox machine holds only about 600 DVDs representing up to 200 titles, a streaming service would enable it to offer a wider array of Hollywood releases, especially older classics, he said.

Separately, Walt Disney Co. (DIS:$43.83,00$0.1300,0.30%) raised the price it charges for DVDs sold to Redbox and Netflix (NFLX:$238.16,00$0.4375,0.18%) to as much as $17.99 for new releases, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

Coinstar (CSTR:$45.41,00$2.11,004.87%) spokeswoman Marci Maule confirmed in an e-mail that Redbox recently signed a new deal with Disney (DIS:$43.83,00$0.1300,0.30%) , but she would not disclose financial terms.

Disney's (DIS:$43.83,00$0.1300,0.30%) wholesale price for a new-release DVD drops to $10.79 four weeks after it goes on sale, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Other movie studios have sought to delay supplies of new DVD releases to Redbox and Netflix (NFLX:$238.16,00$0.4375,0.18%) in the belief that their low prices undercut more profitable disc sales. Redbox agreed last year to wait 28 days before making new DVD releases by 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros. available for rent.

Also Wednesday, Coinstar (CSTR:$45.41,00$2.11,004.87%) said it will buy back $50 million of its common stock from Morgan Stanley (MS:$30.585,0$-0.1250,-0.41%) . The repurchase is part of a previously approved buyback worth up to $74.5 million.

Shares of Coinstar (CSTR:$45.41,00$2.11,004.87%) stock closed down 39 cents, or nearly 1 percent, to $43.30. The stock has traded between $26.43 and $67.56 in the past 52 weeks.

This story includes information from The Associated Press and Bloomberg News.

To see more of The Seattle Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2011, The Seattle Times

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For more information about the content services offered by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT), visit www.mctinfoservices.com. 

 

[brker_guy]

Hi Carl,

 

Fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the info from Rob's forum.  Just read it.  Ok, I am less mad now, but I am still steaming a little. :) 

I really like your last quote:

 

“Level 3 is considering whether to formally bring the dispute before the FCC by filing a complaint with the Commission under the Open Internet Order.

Level 3 is also considering other options to prohibit Comcast from assessing a fee on content that is requested by Comcast’s subscribers.

”

 

Remember the other day I told you that I have an industry journal from Penn Media?  Well, it's called Multichannel.  I think you might like to add this to your reading list. 

 

Here is the article about NFLX that I referred to earlier(subscription might be needed):

 

http://www.multichannel.com/archive/2011/20110131.php

 

That leads me to RedBox.  It's amazing how we think alike.  Yesterday in the LA Times, there was this article:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/02/disney-strikes-new-terms-with-redbox-netflix.html

 

Then, I thought.  This is like deja vu all over again for me.  You see, during the tech bubble, I was involved with a few start ups doing streaming video, as I am sure I have told you.  At the time, I worked with a few Hollywood guys who kept reminding me, "Content is KING!"  This mantra was made famous by Mr. Sumner Redstone.  Anyway, during those times, we knew two things would eat up into our cost of operation.  One was content, and the other was infrastructure (i.e. content managent and transport cost).  So, when I read that article, I had flashbacks to my yesteryears and what we endured.

 

So, with NFLX, Redbox, YouTube, Hulu, Amazon, and SHLD/Sonic Media, they all have to deal with the first problem.  They can't escape that.  With the second one, they have a few choices.  Now, with CDN being so-closely tied to network, they have very few choices.  So, I hope Redbox will make the right decisions, and I also hope that NFLX won't be offended if (3) is the carrier for Redbox and won't pose any kind of conflict of interest for NFLX. 

 

Streaming is a HUGE market!  We are only at the beginning of it.  Just wait 'til you get GoogleTV 2.0 and WebTV 10.0(:)) 

[brker_guy]

Carl, check out this site.  This is what our wonderful FCC spends its money on:

 

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/

 

The website claims to have more than 25 million searchable records showing where broadband Internet service is available, the technology used to provide the service, the maximum advertised speeds of the service, and the names of the service providers.

 

Fair warning: This site is a pain to load because it's heavy on the database and mapping data, not to mention stupid Flash...