LVLT - Level 3

[Guest ValueCarl]

"Content is King." We have discussed this before with Liberty Media's Malone stealing the "catch phrase" from the tum sucking, prior CIA brain trust, Sumner Redstone of CBS!  ;D

 

I remember John, Rupert and Charlie intent on gang banging that Chinese genius, Henry Yuen, from succeeding at his PATENT TERRORISM to validate their claims further!

 

I am still trying to figure out how Rupert, and all his henchmen including "BOYLE" who was inside Gemstar prior to the REVERSE TAKE OVER, weren't indicted as well! As my eight digit net worth, multi-millionaire attorney once dared to tell me, "Carl, it's only money." My lost money wasn't supposed to have mattered nor was he courageous enough or willing enough to lose his, in pursuit of more noteworthy claims.  Lesson for the board: "MONEY DAMN WELL MATTERS!"  IMO  

[brker_guy]

Carl, sometimes I wonder myself how that hypocrite Rupert Murdoch isn't in jail if not bankrupt first either.  A few weeks ago, in front of the good graces of the wise Charlie(i.e. Charlie Munger that is) at the DJCO annual meeting, he said, "If Berkshire had used the leverage that Rupert Murdoch uses, we’d own the world." He went to say, "Murdoch nearly went belly up a few times." 

 

So, Mr. Murdoch either has extremely good Karma, or he has what's coming to him for all of the bad things that he has done in his life.  I am not wishing ill-wills toward Mr. Murdoch, but I am inclining to think that there is something waiting for him and his empire...

 

Vengeance shall be yours one day, Carl!  Just be patience.  The Lord gives it; the Lord also shall take it...

[Guest ValueCarl]

That's right Brker_guy, my reference was to Charlie Ergen, not the esteemed Charles T. Munger, an amazing man no matter what I say about him from time to time!  ;D

 

The basic principles of investment thesis for (3) remains perfectly Buffett and in tact:

 

1) Find a business with growth rates and moats as far as the eye can contemplate

 

2) Determine you have a trustworthy management team

 

Notwithstanding the fact that various factions of the darker side continue to claim that our (3) managers have been crooks over the years; nothing could be further from the truth!

 

Certainly, as I have referenced earlier, they have mastered "ethical egoism," much to the advantage of all shareholders who have "BELIEVED" in them throughout their history.

 

Long ago, Jim Crowe told me that, (3) was worth MANY MULTIPLES of the then $40 Billion market cap. Depending upon ones definition of "many," FIVE seems like a good number to me!  ;D  

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Coinstar(CSTR), aka, RED BOX gets bought out at a 30 percent premium to today's share price by Netflix(NFLX) using stock! They both ride the (3) network to content nirvana subsequently.

 

This is a follow up call to my BUY SILVER at $21 per oz. earlier.

 

With the Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax message board and its players, you can ditch that CRIMINAL CRAMER as well as Comcast's CNBC trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Nnejad]

Carl, Brkerguy, these are questions I've been meaning to ask you guys...

 

A, don't the local monopolies have an inherent competitive advantage versus a level 3 just by the shear fact they already have so much more customer penetration/data traffic/scaled sales,support, and service capability in these local markets?

 

and i guess B, wouldn't some of the cheap ILEC's be at least as good as a bet on playing the sharp increase in data use?

 

Thoughts appreciated.  I understand how regardless level three is cheap, i just want to know how you feel about an ILEC like Frontier where, if I recall correctly, in 17% of their markets they actually have no cable/telco competition, and in another 25% they have very weak competition (like cable with no voice technology yet).  Even if data growth is slower in these areas, it seems to me like Frontier will more than make up for it in higher margins based on competitive advantage.

 

 

[brker_guy]

Nnejad,

 

A, don't the local monopolies have an inherent competitive advantage versus a level 3 just by the shear fact they already have so much more customer penetration/data traffic/scaled sales,support, and service capability in these local markets?

 

The telcos & MSOs are "trying" to turn this into a competitive advantage over the Tier 1 backbone vendors.  They are the ones that standing in front of you and I to get to the Level (3)'s network and the rest of the Internet.  They are behaving like monopolists, but in reality, it's more like a duopoly.  Right now, you can easily shed your landline for VoIP.  Depending where you live, you can get your highspeed services from the likes of Clearwire, United Online/Earthlink or some localized DSL-based ISP vendor. 

 

However, the MSOs and the telcos are trying to tell you that you need all 3 services from them, and that they control what you watch or how you get access to contents.  That is criminal because last time I look, there is only ONE US Govt like there is one Canadian Govt.  Sometimes, I wonder out loud to myself, "What would happen had (3) merge with Sprint?  What would the telco landscape and dynamic will be like if they do that?"  Mr. Crowe always talks about being 500 feet away from your home and my home, but I have yet to see him doing anything to be inside my home to cut off these criminal duopolists at the knees.  That is why I don't allow Cox to control what I watch or how I surf the web.  I have a Roku box and a WD Live Plus to stream to all my TVs at home, and one day, I will get rid of the cable boxes to turn these last mile guys as nothing more than "dumb pipes".

 

and i guess B, wouldn't some of the cheap ILEC's be at least as good as a bet on playing the sharp increase in data use?

 

Are you sure you mean "ILEC" here?  A few posts ago, I did illustrate one of my industry friends' internet usage comparison of the ILECs versus the new comers like Clearwire.  You might want to read that.  All the ILECs want to do is to shake you down for every penny you will ever own.  They are not cheap; they are EXTREMELY GREEDY!

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Nnejad,

 

I will add that the game going on in the last mile between those Duopolies Brker_guy has correctly assessed, is cannibalistic and "zero sum" especially whilst considering their fixed or limited territories and subs. If you go back to the two pronged Buffett test I chose to point to earlier, I cannot contemplate or come close to fathoming what can be considered "UNLIMITED" growth of "broadband" to global participants in the local markets which has piqued your interest.

 

The long haul piece has the bulk of the traffic going and coming, up and down, every which way but loose.

 

Your mention of Frontier is interesting. The company has done very well in the market it serves. But how does it grow out of that? And, how does it prevent the competing forces which are coming into its markets, especially as we begin to see other forms of technology like the "white spaces" being delivered by non traditional players which can even include "energy companies," for example?

 

It's no wonder the Duopolists are attempting to behave the way they are. Purely greed and arrogance while dismissing the epic shift no longer in their favor. In this regard, at least as I see it, is that the Genie has left the bottle in conjunction with a demographic, generational shift that has no interest in being dictated to while being technically adept. If I owned stakes in these last mile dinosaurs, especially the telecom monopolists, I would be very scared, very scared indeed whilst pondering all the other obligations in the form of pensions, healthcare, etc. while their traditional "racket" of passing on "costs" with inflation, etc., has been turned up side down on its head thanks to the technological shift and creative destruction which is "The Internet."  

 

In the meantime, on the long haul side, let there be ONE backbone for ALL, one that is built on a technology model, a Beautiful Blonde, who all market participants are happy to have whenever they please-they can be as greedy as they want in calling on her services-since silicon economics is working in their favor from a unit cost basis, i.e., the more they eat, the lower cost per unit is accomplished.  

 

That's one spectacular way how great companies add "VALUE" to their end users, i.e., consumers. And, (3) was built to make The American people in addition to the rest of the globe, very happy in all facets of their work and play lives as result of this wonderful invention.        

 

     

 

[txlaw]

Guys, Genachowski is one of the good guys, in my opinion.  It's just that he's working within the system, which is so effed up.

 

I have not mentioned this yet, but I briefly practiced as a technology/telecom lawyer in DC.  While I did, I saw exactly how things work.  The Commission (not the FCC itself) is intensely political, and it's pretty unbelievable how much lobbying goes on there by both the incumbents and the newcomers.  "Horse trading," as the partner I worked for put it, is standard when it comes to making telecom policy.  That same partner also believed that "regulatory capture" had occurred at the FCC, not necessarily because the guys there were corrupt, per se, but because the system has just become really corrupt in DC. 

 

And it doesn't help that during the Bush era, there wasn't a merger between the big dogs that the FCC and DOJ didn't like.  It's really a travesty what occurred in the last decade or so.  I've always been of the opinion that there should be a rule against the distributors of information also controlling content.  I want dumb pipes where I can get over the top content, and I think that should be a rule.  (Comcast is very smart to be doing what they're doing -- they're very shareholder friendly, though not consumer friendly.) 

 

It's a been a while since I've been in that world, so I haven't kept up with the latest stuff.  I've been meaning to sift through the Open Internet Proceedings docket, but I haven't had the time.  Plus, I prefer to follow the innovative application and content side of the equation, as I went to school and worked in Silicon Valley prior to going to law school.

 

Rep. Marsha Blackburn was the one who asked that question, probably at the request of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and NCTA, all of whom are top contributors to her campaign.  It was likely put to Genachowski purposefully and then spun to the Journal by PR people for those entities.  Ms. Blackburn is currently boasting on her website how she is "defunding the FCC." 

 

It makes me sick to see how Republicans are casting an antitrust issue as a "we don't want government controlling the Internet issue."  It's a sad state of affairs.

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Hmm, it appears that a well respected telecom insider will see their prediction come true then. The FCC will be neutered and these matters will be hauled off to the halls of Congress, The Supreme Court, or both. This sage understands telecom history in making the claim.

 

She finds solace in letting distributors of content control content according to their dictum while describing the American People as satisfied with her claims.

 

http://blackburn.house.gov/

[txlaw]

Nick, I know you were asking Valuecarl and brker_guy about their responses to these two questions, but I'm going to add my two cents in anyway :)  Guys, feel free to correct any mistakes in my thinking, as I've not been involved in the technical/business side before.

 

A, don't the local monopolies have an inherent competitive advantage versus a level 3 just by the shear fact they already have so much more customer penetration/data traffic/scaled sales,support, and service capability in these local markets?

 

With respect to customer penetration, we have to distinguish between households/residential and enterprise/large buildings.  For the service provider, content and enterprise customers that LVLT is going after, LVLT can certainly compete with wireline/cable incumbents who are currently providing services to these guys (if they are, in fact) because they have the end-to-end network that allows them to be the low cost provider of the best and most reliable communications services after the initial buildouts.  Additionally, even if LVLT is a not a last mile provider, note that many of these incumbents purchase communication services from LVLT by linking into LVLT's network.  

 

For the residential last mile providers of service, you have to clarify in what respect you mean there is a competitive advantage.  If you simply mean that it wouldn't be worthwhile to build out to residences because they are already wired with copper and coaxial, that's not that controversial a statement, although some people still think that fiber to the home is where we're eventually going (I have no opinion on whether that's good or who will be doing that).  But if prices continue to stay outrageously high for such poor service, you could see alternative last mile providers take over some of the businesses of the incumbents.  It's not inconceivable that we might be replacing high priced cable Internet or DSL/U-Verse with LTE or Wimax service if the wireless guys are competitive enough (although note that incumbents own two major 4G providers).  And many of the wireless guys will need backhaul and longhaul services from LVLT.

 

ValueCarl also alluded to broadband over power lines, I think.  Not sure about the feasability of that, but you get the point, I'm sure.

 

and i guess B, wouldn't some of the cheap ILEC's be at least as good as a bet on playing the sharp increase in data use?

 

I am pretty sure that LVLT will be a phenomenal business for the "long haul," literally.  They are going to be building out and providing connectivity to the really heavy users of broadband for the next decades.  If a hospital in a metropolitan area wants to have best in class connectivity for telemedicine purposes, why wouldn't they go with LVLT who can provide this to them at the lowest cost possible over a long term contract?  More importantly, they are a Tier 1 network!  Eventually, those long lived pipes get more data flowing through them to where they aren't so empty.  ValueCarl has alluded to LVLT being like a BNI in terms of moat.  I think that's right with respect to their backbone.  

 

I don't really know much about Frontier, but if you're going to value an ILEC for anything more than a short term mispricing trade, you will have to really do a lot of work on what their average revenue per users (ARPU) will look like over the long term.  In addition to regulatory uncertainty with respect to access charges, intercarrier compensation, and all that stuff that I've forgotten about since I was a telecom lawyer, a lot of these incumbents derive their revenue from old line services that are being replaced by IP-based services.  You can just take a quick glance at FTR's pre-merger financials and see that phonomenon.

 

It's much harder to value an FTR for the long term because it has a cigar butt business attached to a longer term business.  Management will be key, and that's probably why FFH owns FTR -- they like management and think they will optimize the decaying business, return cash to shareholders, and invest at attractive rates of return.

 

But I'd rather go with the fat pitch (which is a fat pitch only because I believe it's within my circle of competence).

[brker_guy]

Wow!  I am so glad that my mother and father moved us out of TN when I was a little kid.  This is sickening!  If I was living in Nashville still today, I would try to organize a recall of Ms. Blackburn right about now.  Hearing her rants on the floor of Congress about the industry pouring in $60BIL to create jobs kind of made want to puke.  This woman knows NOTHING about job creation in the telecom space.  She should go ask the former employees at Lucent, Nortel, and all of those CLECs who got into financial troubles during the tech bubble to know the meaning of jobs creation, vibrant industry and free market.  Furthermore, she ranted on about spectrum usage while doing her "defunding of the FCC".  This woman can't tell btw wireline versus wireless to even be able to call for a defunding of the FCC.

 

Like I said yesterday, our country is being run by second-class politicians, and this Congresswoman from my old childhood's home state just proved me right.

 

Txlaw, thanks for letting know that you are law practitioner.  I was guessing that, but didn't get a chance to ask.  Thanks for the insights on DC.  In my current job now, I have to travel to DC often, and I do know the meaning of "horse trading".  Oh yeah, do I know "horse trading" in DC.  The horse we are trading can't even race.  ;D ;D ;D  No wait, they do race; only during the elections... ;D

 

I completely agree with you, TxLaw.  I am sure VZ, T, Comcast or the NCTA fed her some info to rail against Genachowski.  Pathetic!  I am like you.  I only want dumb pipes that I can get OTTC with.  I could give a hoot if the contents are live, a few days or few months old.  I hope that day will come and internet freedom will reign!

 

It makes me sick to see how Republicans are casting an antitrust issue as a "we don't want government controlling the Internet issue."

 

BTW: By any chance you want to contribute some of your IQs to this woman's campaign funds?  She really needs it!  You sound MUCH MORE RATIONAL than this yapping from an idiot who being spoon-fed information in the great hall of Congress.  Sigh!!!  Mr. Munger was right all along, "We are at the apex of civilization as we know it."

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

txlaw, you're right I juxtaposed "white space" technology with "broadband over power lines."   :P With respect to "white space" technology here's the first network that was developed in a rural geography during late 2009 with Dell and Microsoft's help.

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/23781/page1/

 

 

With respect to broadband over power lines, I can't help stop from thinking this is an area Mr. Buffett's Home Services of America will one day tackle in offering services.

 

On a side note, (3) seems to be garnering the attention of fast money traders now and is continuously being mentioned there by one of its option gurus. It looks like they want to test the upper limits of the important $1.80 strike price which would result in a new two year high. With a long Presidents' Day three day weekend ahead, tomorrow could be an interesting trading day. Strangely enough, this talk about short interest being high is not factual since it has come down rather large on a percentage basis according to January's end of month numbers. There have been plenty of "phantom shares" over the years, illegally naked ones, which could probably bankrupt the cash horde of Berkshire Hathaway if the perpetrators were ever forced to cover their misdeeds, however.    

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41640599?__source=yahoo|headline|quote|text|&par=yahoo

 

 

[txlaw]

Thoughts appreciated.  I understand how regardless level three is cheap, i just want to know how you feel about an ILEC like Frontier where, if I recall correctly, in 17% of their markets they actually have no cable/telco competition, and in another 25% they have very weak competition (like cable with no voice technology yet).  Even if data growth is slower in these areas, it seems to me like Frontier will more than make up for it in higher margins based on competitive advantage.

 

Also forgot to mention in my post that Frontier is an interesting situation because there is a big push for bringing broadband to rural areas, and Frontier is one of the top rural local exchange carriers (RLECs). They could get very attractive returns on investment if there is a big push to accelerate rural broadband buildout (which is subsidized).  

 

It's probably a company I should do some research on.  Those guys at HWIC are smart.  

[txlaw]

txlaw, you're right I juxtaposed "white space" technology with "broadband over power lines."   :P With respect to "white space" technology here's the first network that was developed in a rural geography during late 2009 with Dell and Microsoft's help.

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/23781/page1/

 

Very interesting article, ValueCarl.  Thanks for posting.

 

Yeah, I'm really glad that the Silicon Valley guys made their big lobbying push for white space networks.  You see this article?  http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229100389&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All

 

NAB sues, of course.

[Myth465]

You guys have been doing quite well. Congrats.

[Guest ValueCarl]

Myth, we won't do well enough until "THE TYRANNY" inside "THE LAST MILE" is eradicated by "DEFIANCE" forever. When and if that day should arrive, a day which will serve The People of The Globe well, Jim Crowe's conversation indicating (3)'s multiples to a previous $40B market cap will be realized!

 

At the same time, succeeding at overturning this internet tyranny dovetails with Mr. Warren E. Buffett's comments surrounding his belief in "The American People" moving ahead. Empowering all people via their untainted, unfettered, internet connections-except in violation of the law-is the key to long term peace and prosperity across the globe!

 

[txlaw]

What do you guys think about Falcone's plans for LightSquared? 

 

My understanding is that they plan on wholesaling 4G spectrum to communications service providers and that it is really a gap coverage provider.  But is there any possibility that they could be a last mile provider for rural areas?

[Guest ValueCarl]

txlaw, I believe Brker_guy covered Falcone in great detail somewhere inside the cave behind this thread. He has some interesting history and experiences in that space, as I recall too. On the other hand, Falcone's use of leverage in his fund, makes Jim Crowe's use appear like child play. He's damn aggressive, and really needs to monetize the value of his spectrum quickly in order to turn his ship around!     

[Guest ValueCarl]

Uh oh! Mr. Buffett is talking like a trader and contradicting "investor rules" he has also laid out, it appears. I was going to write about this yesterday, especially tied to his comment I remember from awhile ago, how his ISP in Omaha was unable to RAISE his prices for his home internet connection to play "Bridge" online. I believe he said something like, "they can't get me to pay X per month!"

 

Anyway, here is proof positive that "The Oracle" is a TRADER in his CORE! This could be the reason why he BLEW OUT his COMCAST POSITION laid by Lou Simpson now gone!!!!!! IMO

 

 

“The single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power,” Buffett told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in an interview released by the panel last week. “If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business. And if you have to have a prayer session before raising the price by 10 percent, then you’ve got a terrible business.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-18/buffett-says-pricing-power-more-important-than-good-management.html

[brker_guy]

It really amazes me how you keep track of all these nuggets of news from the yesteryears, Carl!  I had read this Virginia trial 2 years ago, but had forgotten about it until now.  Thanks for sharing the refresher info.

 

Myth, if you had bought (3) in October or November when the liars and the bashers helped push the price down to 83 cents, you would be very close to a 2 baggers today.  Even if you were doing call options, you might be doing well.  I am not into options; so, I don't know for sure, but I agree with Carl on this:  

we won't do well enough until "THE TYRANNY" inside "THE LAST MILE" is eradicated by "DEFIANCE" forever.

 

TxLaw, interesting you brought up the rural market, Frontier is one of those carriers that will benefit from the Broadband America and that America Recover Act innitiatives.  There is another company that we didn't discuss here, and that's Open Range Communications.  Do you guys remember it?

 

http://www.cobizmag.com/videos/view/level-3-communications-bringing-the-internet-to-rural-communities/

 

 

I don't know if you guys saw the news yesterday, but another of (3)'s client had a very quarter in customer growth (4.4Mil Subs and growing).  That's Clearwire:

 

http://newsroom.clearwire.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=214419&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1530258&highlight=

 

May be this is our backdoors into the last mile and to unseat those duopolists.  Where I live, I can sign up for CLWR services.  There is only a small problem.  All of you married people know who I am talking about.

 

Ok, TxLaw, regarding LightSquared, yes, I have been following it because I am fascinated by their business model.  When I first started out as a young grunt right out of college, my very first intern job was to write GPS satellite signal codes for GPS satellite simulators.  Those were the days.  Along the way, I got lucky with Loral stocks.  Anyway, when the folks as Harbinger went an acquisition binge(pun intended) to buy up all of these geosynchronous satellites like Inmarsat, Skyterra and Loral to do a backbone for wireless, alarms went off in my head.  You guys surely remember Iridium and Globalstar, right?  Well, LightSquared is kind of like Iridium and Globalstar revisited:

 

http://www.skyterra.com/docs/ATCREVFeb2.pdf

 

Here is the difference though.  LightSquared just teamed up with Nokia Network to do a network of LTE ground stations and relays to cut down on the propagation delays.  Well here is the thing, Harbinger, itself, also needs to raise capital to do this.  It's not easy to build out $7 Bil worth telecom asset even in these days and age.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/20/us-nokiasiemens-harbinger-idUSTRE66J2ZT20100720

 

http://next-generation-communications.tmcnet.com/topics/nextgen-voice/articles/92624-lightsquared-network-hires-nokia-siemens-national-lte-network.htm#

 

So, that rounds me back to SkyTerra and their platform.  If you look in that PDF file, you shall see the frequency being proposed by Skyterra: 1525-1559 MHz

1626.5-1660.5 MHz for their satellites.  These are L-Band.

 

Well, guess what?  Who do you think is sitting in the L-Band as well?  All of these smart phones and their Location-Based services apps won't work without it.  If you guess GPS, you are correct, Sir!  

 

So, here is the Jamming Report from GPS World:

 

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/signal-processing/lightsquared-jamming-report-11030

 

This is after the FCC gave LightSquared the green light to do testing:

 

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/fcc-grants-go-ahead-potential-interferer-with-gps-signal-10989

 

The GPS Community is up in arms against this proposed idea by LightSquared:

 

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/gps-community-urged-contact-congress-regarding-fcc-proposal-10962

 

So, I wish LightSquared lots of luck on their dreams and their technical prowess, but this is like watching a remake of a Hollywood movie, hoping that the ending will be different.

 

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Attempting to be fair, balanced and impartial on my earlier Buffett claims, I may have been fooled into a belief system which Mr. Buffett doesn't adhere to, that being, "trust the management team," whilst looking for a quote that can be directly attributed to him on public companies that he invests and/or speculates in.

 

In this regard, it could be that the main stream media has attempted to confuse Mr. Buffett's words, so shame on me, if I have misunderstood or falsely applied one of his basic tenets of investing. Certainly, there may be quotes he has officially made which will make mince meat out of anything I have attempted to connect to his name with regard to "trusting management teams." My apologies, if that is the case.

 

Maybe it's fair to say that, Mr. Buffett will only need to "trust management teams" on companies he intends to swallow whole, be they public or private, by placing them under his Berkshire Hathaway umbrella. His annual reports are often about the trust he has for his personal business managers, inside of the businesses he openly claims he could not run on his own, otherwise.

 

If anyone has a factual quote of him stating "trust in management teams" as a prerequisite for investors, or speculators, alike, please help me by sharing this. Personally, it has become a prerequisite for me allocating capital as a result of a couple of bad experiences over many years. I used a Murdoch example, already, at least in the case of him getting control of another public company he was intent on destroying. Murdoch is a bad man, very bad, very bad, indeed. 

 

Here is a public company Mr. Buffett chose to comment on with respect to "confidence" of such management teams during its nascent stage. I for one, will never forget his comments and have always considered them to be a proxy for "excellence" in "character." But again, the word "trust" is not used only to be "implied."

 

<Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, issued the following comment on his company's investment in Level 3: "Liquid resources and strong financial backing are scarce and valuable assets in today's telecommunications world. Level 3 has both. Coupled with the management of Walter Scott and Jim Crowe, in whom I have great confidence, Level 3 is well equipped to seize important opportunities that are likely to develop in the communications industry." >

 

http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=491&PR=385

 

 

In summary, I am sure context and timing will always come into play when reflecting upon a man's words during any snapshot in history.         

[brker_guy]

Not to bring politics into this debate for Net Neutrality, but our mighty Congress just made it so.  This is down right STUPID BEYOND COMPREHENSION:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_internet_rules_house_vote

 

"about keeping the government out of the business of running the Internet."

 

This moron from the great state of Oregon probably doesn't realize is that it WAS THE U.S. Govt that created the Internet with its funding for ARPANET which later becomes the Internet as we know it.

 

His state is behind this big push called OWIN:

 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OWIN/

 

And guess what?  Now, it's in trouble.  May be his supporters will have a thing or two to say when he runs for re-election:

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/09/oregon_emergency_radio_system.html

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Hmm, it's sad because I like the general idea being invoked by the State of Oregon, but focusing on the wasted time and dollars as well as where the money went seems paramount! 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, I would have written Ms. Blackburn personally had it not been for the fact that she's dealing with "national issues" within her capacity as Congresswoman, but is only accepting comments from her district's constituents, otherwise. What's up with that!

 

If I could write her, I would tell her along with the Oregon representative, Walden, this, however:

 

Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Walden, TEAR DOWN those MONOPOLY WALLS in THE LAST MILE intent on DUMBING DOWN the American People and their children, while handicapping them in the global marketplace!

 

<Thus has been born the "AllVid Tech Company Alliance"—named in honor of the FCC's suggested gateway interface.

 

"It is essential for the Commission to break down the wall separating the home network from [pay TV] networks—not just poke a few holes in it, or rely on progress on the peripheries," the Alliance wrote to the FCC on Wednesday. "The seeds for real competition must emerge in chips, technologies, and interfaces that can be organic to tens of millions of products, services, and consumer uses—not just those presently conceived, but those that innovative minds, and users who can select and adapt their own devices, can conceive.">

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/google-best-buy-and-sony-ally-against-big-cable.ars

[Guest ValueCarl]

When Big Jim talks, do PEOPLE listen? LOL!

 

 

http://gigaom.com/2008/02/12/crowe-online-video-will-keep-fibers-future-full/

 

He made the short drive up Hwy. 36 on Monday afternoon for a well-reasoned talk about long-term trends in communications that had several key takeaways, among them:

 

Internet video use is here to stay, and will only increase going forward

Bundling services with devices is yesterday’s strategy

Legislators and regulators are right to be concerned about the potential for monopolistic practices by AT&T, Verizon and cable companies

Net Neutrality violations could be handled better by the FTC than the FCC