LVLT - Level 3

[brker_guy]

Ben,

 

With the combined company, I think LVLT's management needs to figure a way to make nice with Comcast to be part of this:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110612/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_nbc_s_olympic_bet

 

Consider this: Even at a loss, the Olympics generate huge audiences. About 185 million people saw some of the Olympics in Vancouver last year. The struggling broadcaster can promote new shows to those viewers as it tries to dig out of fourth place.

 

We want those 185million eyeballs on our network in London next year.  I know that AKAM had the Vancouver online streaming, but all is not lost if we can demonstrate to Comcast that (3) is their partner of choice for "Must See TV in 2012" in London.  The question here is how?

[brker_guy]

Ben, while agree with you that LVLT has the network reach the scale to be Comcast's parter for the 2012 Olympic, I worry about what the ramifications the effect of the spat over NFLX have on the working relationship btw. LVLT and Comcast.  I don't know how much progress has been made over this negotiation a treaty with Comcast, but the longer this drags out, the more it will hurt our chance of being Comcast/NBC Universal partner for the Olympics and those eyeballs.  This is something for us to keep in the back of our minds as we approach the games next year.

 

"James Crowe coined a new term: "VCDN" (Video Content Delivery Network)  He said, "streamed or downloaded video is a carrier's business." We will see if traditional CDN's will be able to compete with the world's finest end to end fiber optic network."

 

Well, Jim likes to think that he comes up with a lot of wonderful acronym like OBITDA or VCDN etc, but this term VCDN has been around WAY BEFORE Jim thought of it.  The guys who have been working on traditional CDN have looked into this:

 

Ben, while agree with you that LVLT has the network reach the scale to be Comcast's parter for the 2012 Olympic, I worry about what the ramifications the effect of the spat over NFLX have on the working relationship btw. LVLT and Comcast. 

 

http://www.cs.ucc.ie/~cjs/docs/2007/mmcn07.pdf

 

Look at the date of the publication.  The author of this paper has been working on this as far back as early 2000...

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Hmm....Brker_guy. When I was reading a recent Seeking Alpha author stumping for Time Warner, and some of the other cables' dual role for creating and delivering internet content at the same time referencing our Level 3 as Level One(Freudian slip) in his article, all in an attempt to dismiss Netflix's sustainability, I just kept fantasizing about a Netflix (3) combination as those quality Netflix streams keep coming through my P/C.  ;)   

[brker_guy]

Level 3 can deliver uncompressed HD video  to meet the demand of eyeballs for quality video. It also makes it easy to transmit better video by eliminating encoding and decoding from the process. Uncompressed HD transports video in its pristine, native format.

 

• Latency: No latency from encoding and decoding, so video transmitted will be

received at the end destination nearly instantaneously.

 

• Quality: Video is presented exactly as it comes from the camera with no loss in

quality from compression.

 

• Ease: Removing encoders and decoders from the delivery chain allows you to

simplify your operations and eliminates links in the chain where something could

go wrong.

 

• Archival: A location that is receiving an uncompressed HD transmission can store

the video in its original form for archival purposes.

 

Isn't Level 3 the only one who can transmit high-quality uncompressed HD video from end to end/creation to consumption?

 

http://cdn1.level3.com/prod/App_Data/Replicated/MediaFiles/E/B/3/%7BEB34AA0D-35AC-4CB6-A5CB-A4F58693FB43%7Dbrochure_vyvx_uncompressed_hd.pdf

 

I think Comcast will concentrate on getting content/bandwidth delivered via the highest quality transmissions for pristine video that can amaze it's audiences, and forget about the minor peering dispute it has with Level 3.

 

Ben, you sound like me when I used to sell video compression softwares for a living. ;D :D  You would make a great AE, Ben.  AE stands for Applications Engineering.  ;D :D

[Guest ValueCarl]

Seeking Alpha's, Rocco, got (3)'s name in this commentary correct this time in addition to his relentless pumping of Time Warner Cable. Comments are interesting at a minimum.  ;)

 

Death to all Last Mile Titans for having poorly served "The People of the United States of America."  

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/274878-time-warner-just-gets-it?source=yahoo#comments_header

[Guest ValueCarl]

"Content is commodity with ever decreasing demand." You have heard this on The Corner of Berkshire and Fairfax before anywhere else. I can see the tum juices dripping out of the corner of Sumner Redstone's mouth while his heart skips a beat.  :D Brker_guy, get him on the phone to deliver the bad news!

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/274878-time-warner-just-gets-it?source=yahoo 

[DCG]

        AboveNet reportedly receives offer from private-equity firm, NY Post reports

 

 

On Wednesday June 15, 2011, 6:13 am EDT

 

AboveNet (NYSE:ABVT), which has been trying to raise interest through a JP Morgan (NYSE:JPM)-run auction over the past few months, has received a binding offer from a private-equity firm in the last few days, the New York Post reports. The terms of the bid have not been disclosed, but AboveNet has been asking for a minimum bid of $80 a share, or over $2B, a source says. TPG Capital, Madison Dearborn and Providence Equity were believed to have been studying the company.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AboveNet-reportedly-receives-theflyonthewall-2192596577.html?x=0&.v=1

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

                          Level 3 Communications Market Cap is 3.8B

                                     

                                      What is wrong with this picture?

 

Level 3's horrendous balance sheet is what's wrong with the picture. It would take well over $10B to acquire Level 3. I know people on here argue it's worth more than that, and it might be, but it narrows down potential purchasers quite a bit.

 

ABVT has a clean balance sheet and is profitable.

[DCG]

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

                   

     

 

                           Level 3 Communications Market Cap is 3.8B

                                     

                                       What is wrong with this picture?

 

Level 3's horrendous balance sheet is what's wrong with the picture. It would take well over $10B to acquire Level 3. I know people on here argue it's worth more than that, and it might be, but it narrows down potential purchasers quite a bit.

                                     

                                       

 

DCG, Thank you for your input. With the 10B figure scenario you threw out there, my instant thoughts were to begin an exit strategy at $6.00 per share. (10B/1.7B Shares Outstanding).

 

I think the private market value/replacement cost of LVLT is easily $20.00 per share. OK, say I'm way off base, let's cut that in half to $10.00 per share. Mr. Market will sell you his shares for around $2.20 per share, 20 cent on the dollar. OK, say I'm wrong again on the intrinsic value of LVLT, lets' say it is only worth $5.00 per share, which would be 50 cent on the dollar at today's price.

 

Now LVLT will eventually have earnings due to the exploding demand of exponentially growing bandwidth. Then what will Mr Market do?

 

 

I intend to hold at least until $6.00 per share, for the majority of the shares. I'm happy to hold LVLT with the cost basis of under $2.00 That's all I'm doing is waiting to take advantage of my partner Mr. Market when he goes crazy on the up side. I won't even begin to think LVLT is at fair value until I see $6.00

 

 

I hope you're right, and think the replacement costs are an important part of valuing this company (although it's also important to consider that the replacement costs in the future may be less than what it cost LVLT to build the network). I'm just pointing out that any company wanting to acquire Level 3 is going to have to take on their over $7 Billion in debt. So companies will ask themselves how long it will take them to recoup a $10 Billion investment, vs just paying Level 3 to use their network, or whether they can realize $10 Billion in synergies. Also, much of any cash LVLT generates for the foreseeable future has to go toward paying down debt.

 

I like LVLT, but their debt load reduces their potential as a takeover target. And of course the higher the stock price goes, the more a company will have to pay to buy them.

 

My other main concern with LVLT is that it seems like every time they announce a new deal, they STILL (after spending so much time and money building their network) need to spend more money to 'upgrade' their capacity. Even with a big deal to sign a contract with Netflix, it sounds like LVLT is still going to have a hard time making money from the deal.

 

-I'm far from an expert on this company, so correct me if I'm wrong in these statements.

 

And as I said, I do like this company. I used to live in Denver for several years (where their corporate office is (it's in Broomfield, just outside of Denver)) and I know several people who work there (as well as former LVLT employees), and also worked for a large company that was client of LVLT, so I've heard both good and bad things about the company over the years.

[txlaw]

I like LVLT, but their debt load reduces their potential as a takeover target. And of course the higher the stock price goes, the more a company will have to pay to buy them.

 

Do you mean that you think LVLT is a good investment now or that you like their services do but do not think that it is a good investment?

 

If you now think LVLT is a good investment, what made you change your mind?  Just curious.

[DCG]

If you now think LVLT is a good investment, what made you change your mind?  Just curious.

 

I don't know if it's a good investment. I think there is value to the company's assets, but I have a very hard time valuing this company. As I said earlier in this thread, I still think they will eventually need earnings to remain in business. I still don't agree with the posts in this thread from people that say earnings don't matter for this company.

 

I also don't know how people are coming up with replacement costs valuations. Just because James Crowe says something doesn't mean its true. And with technology, replacement costs could easily be quite a bit less in 5-10 years from now than they are today. I also don't even know if their technology will be needed in 10 years from now (there could be alternative technology). I'm also not fully convinced that James Crowe really has a solid plan for the future. This company has been building for the future almost since they've been in existence. You can only delay the future so long without actually making money. The company has been on the brink of bankruptcy for years.

 

If you had $10 Billion, would you ('you' being the people in this thread that make LVLT sound like the best run company in the world) buy the entire company, and when would you expect to earn back your investment?

[brker_guy]

DCG, just want to share a few quick thoughts with you.  You should be aware that the reason why ABVT's balance sheet is clean is because they have rinsed it through a bankruptcy back in those post tech bubble days.  ABVT used to be called Metromedia Fiber.  I don't know if you know that. 

 

Since its inception, LVLT has been burdened with debt that it had to service.  We used to sit on $10Bil+ in debt.  It's now down to $7Bil(post GBLC merger).  A lot of LVLT's peers have taken the quick fix solution by going into bankruptcy to rinse its balance sheet, and then claims that its balance sheet is clean.  LVLT has been operating with one arm tied behind its back due to the debt it carries. 

 

Two, the telecom industry is in a consolidation phase again as you can see.  Pretty soon, there won't be a lot of carriers left, and prices will have to rise.  So, you have to look at replacement cost as part of your valuation.

 

So, here is a thought.  You put the network of ABVT side-by-side with LVLT's, and then, you go through product offering of ABVT's versus LVLT's.  Then, you ask yourself, "What is the metric you would use to value each of those products and services if they are to be broken up?"  For instance, colocation is one that is fully integrated into LVLT which is a hidden asset that no one looks at.  Their CDN business and their Vyvx business can be spun off as its own operating entity like AKAM and LLNW.  What value do you put on those?  The metro fiber asset that LVLT has.  Mile for mile, if ABVT was to be taken out today, what would those metro miles be worth to ABVT's buyer versus what they are worth to LVLT's buyer?  Finally, those 39GHz spectrum that LVLT sits on to backhaul LTE traffic carries value too. 

 

A lot of people have been focusing way to much on LVLT having to be profitable NOW!  Everyone doesn't seem to realize that incremental return for incremental invested capital.  The LVLT's business foundation can't be solid today if its focus was to be profitable right now.  All of those cash flow and capital had to be re-deployed to build up LVLT and allowing it to own hidden assets like CDN, Vyvx, metro fiber, wireless backhaul spectrum, and colocation.  Can any of LVLT's peers match those assets?  These are the hidden value of LVLT.  Yet, I hear a lot of people screaming that LVLT has too much debt and LVLT is not profitable right now etc...

[Guest ValueCarl]

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Above.net has some "binding offer" presumed to be at their $80.00 minimum bid, but the stock is down in the market this morning at $72 pps.

 

What does a speculator do with that since "buying the rumor" is failing?

 

<The terms of the bid have not been disclosed, but AboveNet has been asking for a minimum bid of $80 a share, or over $2B, a source says.>

 

Regarding LVLT's debt, we do have some very high interest coupons resembling usury which would be more beneficial converting sooner rather than later, in an effort to add to operating cash flows for further investments and/or "profits" in the form of FCF for valuing purposes.

 

Maintaining expectations in the gutter as they have been, is partially a result of mismanaging expectations previously. This lost reputation is something else they are keenly aware of, while we should continue to see more favorable signs that they're addressing it.   

[Guest ValueCarl]

How much time do we have on our hands to watch movies? Brker_guy and Ben Graham, what do you think about old MODELS collapsing as part of a global content place?  ;)

 

When using that four to five hour window of free weekly time for movies last night, I had come up with an individual being able to consume approx. 104 two hour movies per year during a mature life cycle of 63 years, and average lifespan of 78. One could say on the surface, that's a lot of movies to see by one individual in one year's time. But what about the quality and suitability towards individual standards while managing their time?

 

That's a lot of movies in one year's time to be "wasting" one's precious time with during the pursuit of "entertainment."

 

With unfettered global content being delivered ubiquitously as we fast forward, more content continues to take more time to view, requiring individuals to be more selective during their decision making processes.

 

You can apply Warren E. Buffett's twenty punch card rule for investments to this concept. It requires a discipline to invest wisely as much as it requires a discipline to seek valuable content that will benefit individuals here on earth.

 

If you only have so much time on your hands, time that continues to be squeezed with more and more content, you will need a spectacular "content organizer" to hone in on your direct interests, needs, desires as well as likes in order that you don't waste the most important "commodity" you have left, that being Father Time.

 

Another poster referencing the "money influence" and "power brokers" of the Hollywood machine makes a good point. Part of the point he or she doesn't address is that, although previously they had the "control" to make people believe they were giving them must have content, the free and open internet eliminates them from such a "control" position.

 

People will choose their own content, anytime and anywhere, so let the best creators of content win by creating great content and eliminating the middlemen along with marketing fluff that has been acting as an albatross around consumer necks.

 

In this more cost effective environment, great content can originate from anywhere and great content organizers who are assisting to lead consumers with their personal choices at the same time delivering that content to them, will thrive as this internet age morphs into something a great deal better than we have ever been able to know about ourselves and the world that we are living in.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/274878-time-warner-just-gets-it?source=yahoo

[tombgrt]

Guys, aren't you afraid the intellectual opportunity cost from (over)evaluating this company could get out of hand?

 

Just asking!  ;D

 

 

[brker_guy]

Tombgrt, you are right.  May be I need to zip my lips about LVLT and let Mr. Market votes on LVLT.  I have said all I want to say about the company, the importance and economic impact of LVLT to technology for the future generation.  We just have to sit back and watch how the movie ends, don't we?

 

In my head, I know what would be the replacement cost of LVLT's network and "system-of-systems" if someone was to build it from scratch today.  It's a fruitless exercise for me to convince anyone else to accept my POV...

 

So, Mr. Market will have his says, and LVLT will execute on its integration of GLBC and its business plan.  So, LVLTbGRT!!!!  :D ;D

[Guest ValueCarl]

Ben Graham, we maintain similar "mental models" and although some who permeate this board may think we are "mental cases" wasting our "intellectual capacity" on such trivial matters such as (3), they do not understand what is at STAKE in this once in a millennium internet revolution with the power to bring great freedoms of all kinds to all of the earth's inhabitants if addressed correctly.  ;) 

[rjstc]

LVLT - Mason Hawkins Holding History

 

Quarterly Buys and Sells:

Period Bought/Sold

(Sh.) Qtr. End Shares Avrg. Price Gain (%)

2006Q2 -213,000 153,519,189 $4.83 -54.8%

2006Q3 +27,244,232 180,763,421 $4.28 -48.9%

2006Q4 +183,000 180,946,421 $5.47 -60.1%

2007Q1 +122,166,982 303,113,403 $6.22 -64.9%

2007Q2 +70,190,000 373,303,403 $5.76 -62.1%

2007Q3 +2,337,000 375,640,403 $5.24 -58.3%

2007Q4 +58,794,862 434,435,265 $3.49 -37.4%

2008Q1 +18,776,085 453,211,350 $2.58 -15.3%

2008Q2 +57,000 453,268,350 $3.08 -29.1%

2008Q3 -1,101,240 452,167,110 $3.1 -29.5%

2008Q4 -7,007,282 445,159,828 $1.02 114.2%

2009Q1 -7,949,000 437,210,828 $0.89 145.5%

2009Q2 -6,237,305 430,973,523 $1.17 86.8%

2009Q3 -1,783,452 429,190,071 $1.35 61.9%

2009Q4 +1,724,000 430,914,071 $1.33 64.3%

2010Q1 +30,883,385 461,797,456 $1.52 43.8%

2010Q2 +22,434,190 484,231,646 $1.37 59.5%

2010Q3 +95,598,892 579,830,538 $1.07 104.2%

2010Q4 -104,142,662 475,687,876 $0.96 127.6%

2011Q1 -3,244,889 472,442,987 $1.29 69.4%

Average Average Cost for Current Shares: $3.84/share -43%

 

 

Prem

2007Q4 +22,000,000 22,000,000 $3.49 -37.4%

2008Q1 +94,700,000 116,700,000 $2.58 -15.3%

2008Q4 +22,576,421 139,276,421 $1.02 114.2%

2010Q3 -39,214,421 100,062,000 $1.07 104.2%

2010Q4 +39,214,421 139,276,421 $0.96 127.6%

2011Q1 0 139,276,421 $1.29 69.4%

Average Average Cost: $2.14/share 2%

 

John Griffin

Quarterly Buys and Sells:

Period Bought/Sold

(Sh.) Qtr. End Shares Avrg. Price Gain (%)

2006Q2 -5,865,000 3,985,000 $4.83 -54.8%

2006Q4 +12,535,000 16,520,000 $5.47 -60.1%

2007Q1 +4,592,240 21,112,240 $6.22 -64.9%

2007Q2 +16,609,100 37,721,340 $5.76 -62.1%

2007Q3 +33,848,760 71,570,100 $5.24 -58.3%

2007Q4 -5,404,231 66,165,869 $3.49 -37.4%

2008Q1 -66,165,869 0 $2.58 -15.3%

2010Q3 +7,785,000 7,785,000 $1.07 104.2%

2011Q1 +10,520,000 18,305,000 $1.29 69.4%

Average Average Cost: $4.56/share -52%

 

Howard Marks

 

uarterly Buys and Sells:

Period Bought/Sold

(Sh.) Qtr. End Shares Avrg. Price Gain (%)

2011Q1 +10,000,000 10,000,000 $1.29 69.4%

Average Average Cost: $1.29/share 69%

 

Paul Tudor Jones

 

Period Bought/Sold

(Sh.) Qtr. End Shares Avrg. Price Gain (%)

2006Q3 +4,341,637 4,341,637 $4.28 -48.9%

2006Q4 +1,670,102 6,011,739 $5.47 -60.1%

2007Q1 -136,079 5,875,660 $6.22 -64.9%

2007Q2 -5,386,739 488,921 $5.76 -62.1%

2007Q3 -488,921 0 $5.24 -58.3%

2010Q3 +78,300 78,300 $1.07 104.2%

2010Q4 -78,300 0 $0.96 127.6%

2011Q1 +1,000,000 1,000,000 $1.29 69.4%

Average Average Cost: $4.1/share -47%

 

Tombgrt,DCG. There were numerous times when this stock could have been bought between roughly $7-8 and $3 to.60some odd cents. If you were a trader you might have made money.  Except for Howard Marks recently, I'll bet most of these others wish they would have taken the advice of some of these board members on when the exact right time to buy was. Maybe these guys knew back a few years that they were buying at 50cents on the dollar. But what a wait. Also I would say that Buffett, Klarman, Berkowitz, to name a few would not be buying this. If this is a great buy that will change the world (At this time) then why wouldn't Buffett buy this "Dominant" company like he just did Lubrizol and Burlington Northern?

[Guest ValueCarl]

Unfortunately, we have had limited success with federal stimulus funds, and of course, the long anticipated tens of billion dollar advertised Networx Contract incorporated before Obama took office, one which will more than likely expire, before being executed upon in the taxpayers best interest.

 

However, there are some who feel obliged to make claims of political nepotism, which is clearly being refuted by a former (3) executive. The only PR for rural funds I recall receiving for internet expansion, was for less than ten million dollars. Although it fits this author's definition, it can hardly move the balance sheet needle as incumbents continue to take the lion's share of federal contracts equating to billions in aggregate.

 

Some source is at their usual game of attempting to cast a pall over this security.    

 

http://www.channelpartnersonline.com/news/2011/06/level-3-executives-cozy-with-white-house-report.aspx

 

The report also found that Level 3 has been awarded millions of dollars in federal stimulus contracts to extend broadband connections in rural areas.

 

But Gips – a former Federal Communications Commission official who served for 10 years as Level 3’s group vice president of global corporate development – told iWatch News (in an email sent through the White House) that he has not been involved “in any matter involving Level 3" since he joined the Obama Administration. He also said he was unaware Level 3 had received the stimulus contracts.

[txlaw]

"Comcast shows off 1 Gbps broadband"

http://gigaom.com/broadband/comcast-shows-off-1-gbps-broadband/

 

[Cardboard]

What is Hesse doing?

 

I mean, he is going to pay $1.5 billion to LightSquared's creditors if they default and will receive in exchange spectrum in the 1.6 Ghz band that for all apparences is useless based on interference with GPS.

 

Then what LightSquared is possibly looking to do in the coming 2 weeks in the 2 Ghz band is also interesting:

 

http://tmfassociates.com/blog/category/operators/terrestar/

 

Very tough to understand what is going on here. I still think that Sprint wants to extract cash and spectrum from both players via some network sharing deal to reinforce its financial and competitive position. The problem I see is that they are wasting time and eventually will play catch-up with Verizon on a national 4G coverage network because Hesse seems greedy here.

 

Cardboard

[Guest ValueCarl]

Akamai is in retreat by shunning a devastating total loss situation. Will this save them? Send in the U.S. Air Force to "Carpet bomb" their retreat. 

 

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2011/06/akamai-to-license-its-cdn-tech-to-telcos/#comment-6431

[Guest ValueCarl]

Better to do this than to overpay by applying significant premiums to one horse pony shows consisting of a prior BK entity with a less than stellar management team who had to re-emerge with a pared down biz plan of select METRO BUILDINGS including dark fiber that is "leased" from (3) directly, like Above.net(ABVT). If these nose bleeding premiums being discussed are applied; however, it does substantiate the significant under valuation present in a multi-faceted international communications enterprise that is Level 3 Communications(LVLT).

 

I calculated $7.50 pps today for (3) by including no growth estimates tied to simple synergies from digesting Global Crossing($1.5B EBITDA) and the 35 percent federal tax advantage that $6B in NOL's represents to the share price. 

 

Interesting that HULU seems to be up for sale as of today.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hulu-weighs-sale-options-rb-1341874275.html;_ylt=Ai7VzgyX5KBDv5ECEn5usNm7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1YXFrbzdjBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNodWx1d2VpZ2hzc2E-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

[Guest ValueCarl]

This is a nice "Storey" to share.  ;)

 

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/special-reports/15-most-powerful-people-wireline/jeff-storey-level-3-communications-wirelines-most-p

[Guest ValueCarl]

I don't know why, but this comment is not being allowed to be released to certain "pundits" opining about "network neutrality."

 

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/i-want-my-internet/content?oid=2403296

 

 

It may be that certain pundits on both sides of this debate, whether intentional or not, keep missing the crucial factor surrounding the "economics" for delivering quality internet streams across the globe. For the internet to remain "The Great Liberator," a vehicle for bringing all Peoples around Mother Earth together in the hopes of establishing world peace and prosperity for many, its infrastructure must be sustained. This will require an intelligent third party, objective engineering view of where expenses exist and where they do not versus arbitrarily adding costs by incumbents when and where they do not exist just because...... 

 

For example, as this article points to the Level(3)/Comcast dispute, it overlooks the fact that, Comcast is attempting to burden consumers with unnecessary expenses(indirectly) by establishing a toll charge in discrimination of competing content its subscribers are requesting from cyberspace. At the core of Level (3)'s argument, is the fact that their network extends far deeper into Comcast's territories than Comcast is willing to let them take Netflix's traffic. At the same time, much of Comcast's own intercity network is derived from leased fiber it had previously purchased from Level (3) back in 2004.

 

It wasn't long ago that I had the good fortune of meeting a founding internet father, Dr. Leonard Kleinrock, a genius in his own right who believed I was correct when suggesting that, if the internet infrastructure owners were going to be able to deliver their services under an arcane regulatory scheme which never contemplated the "size" of traffic which IP video would bring vs. vestigial copper voice; some sharing relationship between content and infrastructure owners including their advertisers might need to take place.

 

The use of this term "FREE" or "FREE and OPEN INTERNET" when tying it to free peer to peer(P2P)internet traffic under legacy, arcane laws, along with "free speech" is also misleading for the minds of more casual readers attempting to follow this important issue.

 

Content owners must look to partner with network owners who are providing the most comprehensive, quality low cost services based upon "economics" which is at the core of the Level(3)/Comcast dispute in addition to "discrimination" of one content owner, Comcast, over another content owner not under their jurisdiction but coveted by their subscribers; Netflix.

 

As a hybrid internet distributor or ISP who also owns content, Comcast is acting against the best interests of the consumers it believes it controls.

 

Americans and their politicians need to be focusing upon the right economics behind a "free and open" internet bringing eyeballs to eyeballs around the globe. 

 

Lastly, AT&T is a Tier 1 backbone provider in addition to being a local Internet Service Provider inside the last mile, the last time I checked the reversal of breaking Ma Bell up during the 1980's, and marrying them to a Bell again.               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ericd1]

Interesting article Ben,

 

This could be a very disruptive technology...I've questioned the sky-high (sorry) P/E rations of cell tower leasing companies for awhile, but I seldom short.  American Tower (AMT) at 56x and others could be at risk - I'm sure it will take time to prove the technology and begin to replace towers and it is probably easier to do in metro areas than rural (interstate routes), so not all the towers will disappear, but these companies could be in trouble and not realize it.

 

When do Jan 2014 puts come out?