LVLT - Level 3

[DCG]

Whatever happened to ValueCarl and all the LVLT fanatics?  ???

[txlaw]

Whatever happened to ValueCarl and all the LVLT fanatics?  ???

 

Who are these fanatics you speak of?

[brker_guy]

Speaking of LVLT, something to share:

 

http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2012/11/comm-giants-respond-to-chicago-broadband-rfi

[ericd1]

I am posting inthe LTLV thread because i beleve my questions could best be answered by some of the gurus here

 

 

I have some questions about a new (to the US) technology that provides 4G Wi-Fi 'offloading' of very high speed voice and data to last mile users within range of the buildout area. Evidently there is some testing going on in Columnus OH for a new technology 'offloading solution'.

 

I have some questions about the technology, the providers, competitive technologies, etc. Is there a guru around that would be willing to answer some questions?  Thanks in advance Eric

 

 

[Sportgamma]

An informative article on SA:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1208641-what-s-wrong-with-level-3-communications?source=yahoo

 

NOTE: Even our ol´buddy ValueCarl seems to pop up in the comment section

[Sportgamma]

More on LVLT on SeekingAlpha:

 

Crowe Q&A at Morgan Stanley conference

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1227831-level-3-communications-ceo-presents-at-morgan-stanley-technology-media-amp-telecom-conference-transcript?page=6&p=qanda&l=last

 

"So the punch line of all of this is we think for the foreseeable future those who create applications and content will move much more quickly than the rather slow-moving wired and wireless communications providers through which that content and application flows. I think that means pricing for bandwidth in its various forms. Wireless is a great example. It is going to tend to be higher, because you are in a constrained environment. Look at your wireless billing. See what is happening to it.

 

I think that creates huge opportunities for those in the business, like us who believe the key is not simply to raise unit prices. It is to lower unit prices faster – lower unit cost faster than you lower unit prices. That has been for 10 years our mantra, through scope, scale, innovation, lower unit costs, faster than unit prices grow, then you create a Netflix, or an environment for a Netflix, or an HBO GO, or an MLB.com, or an NFL.com for gaming, which is a huge phenomenon that rarely gets talked about in proportion to its size.

 

All of these things are network delivered, cloud-based services. And we feel more strongly than ever that if you could innovate, increase your scope, increase your scale, drop unit costs, it is a price elastic commodity and it is going to respond to lowering prices. We do think it is a mistake for those who I kind of refer to as the [scarce bit] people. There is only so much spectrum, there is only so much bandwidth, we want to raise prices.

 

I think that is a flawed strategy. The key is to innovate, drop unit costs faster than you drop unit prices, but drop unit prices."

 

...

 

"Personally, I would – so, we have spent three years in an effort to analyze the US addressable market. We have a database. It took us a long time to put it together. We have 3.8 million buildings in it. That is about 13 billion to 14 billion of recurring revenue a month in those buildings.

 

You know who is in there, you know the number of employees, the type of business by SIC code. You can make a pretty rationale estimate of the spend and it is about 13 billion, 14 billion per month in the US alone. If you say, and we can do this in the database show me the buildings based on an algorithm that has revenue, net ex, Opex, show me the buildings that have been greater than a 70% IRR. That is opportunity. You don’t have to do anything more. We don’t have to enter a brand-new business.

 

We don’t have to hire a bunch of folks to get into cloud services. We don’t have to invent anything. We have to get better and better at deploying capital in metros. We have three continents to do it on. So to answer your question, we are focusing a great deal of effort with some of our best executives to analyze, manage and deploy capital in the metro on all three continents.

 

And I would like to think that we could use a greater fraction of free cash in that effort because the returns are so high."

 

 

[Guest longinvestor]

More on LVLT on SeekingAlpha:

 

Crowe Q&A at Morgan Stanley conference

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1227831-level-3-communications-ceo-presents-at-morgan-stanley-technology-media-amp-telecom-conference-transcript?page=6&p=qanda&l=last

 

"So the punch line of all of this is we think for the foreseeable future those who create applications and content will move much more quickly than the rather slow-moving wired and wireless communications providers through which that content and application flows. I think that means pricing for bandwidth in its various forms. Wireless is a great example. It is going to tend to be higher, because you are in a constrained environment. Look at your wireless billing. See what is happening to it.

 

I think that creates huge opportunities for those in the business, like us who believe the key is not simply to raise unit prices. It is to lower unit prices faster – lower unit cost faster than you lower unit prices. That has been for 10 years our mantra, through scope, scale, innovation, lower unit costs, faster than unit prices grow, then you create a Netflix, or an environment for a Netflix, or an HBO GO, or an MLB.com, or an NFL.com for gaming, which is a huge phenomenon that rarely gets talked about in proportion to its size.

 

All of these things are network delivered, cloud-based services. And we feel more strongly than ever that if you could innovate, increase your scope, increase your scale, drop unit costs, it is a price elastic commodity and it is going to respond to lowering prices. We do think it is a mistake for those who I kind of refer to as the [scarce bit] people. There is only so much spectrum, there is only so much bandwidth, we want to raise prices.

 

I think that is a flawed strategy. The key is to innovate, drop unit costs faster than you drop unit prices, but drop unit prices."

 

...

 

"Personally, I would – so, we have spent three years in an effort to analyze the US addressable market. We have a database. It took us a long time to put it together. We have 3.8 million buildings in it. That is about 13 billion to 14 billion of recurring revenue a month in those buildings.

 

You know who is in there, you know the number of employees, the type of business by SIC code. You can make a pretty rationale estimate of the spend and it is about 13 billion, 14 billion per month in the US alone. If you say, and we can do this in the database show me the buildings based on an algorithm that has revenue, net ex, Opex, show me the buildings that have been greater than a 70% IRR. That is opportunity. You don’t have to do anything more. We don’t have to enter a brand-new business.

 

We don’t have to hire a bunch of folks to get into cloud services. We don’t have to invent anything. We have to get better and better at deploying capital in metros. We have three continents to do it on. So to answer your question, we are focusing a great deal of effort with some of our best executives to analyze, manage and deploy capital in the metro on all three continents.

 

And I would like to think that we could use a greater fraction of free cash in that effort because the returns are so high."

 

I listened to the CC yesterday. True to my name, this is a (really) long investment for me. ::) The opportunity cost has been high but the long term prospect of making a return is still intact, IMO. It has been a test of conviction to buy during dips (this has been all dips :(), but I continue to meaningfully reduce my cost basis, I hate to admit it. Wish I did'nt know of them 10 years ago!

 

The telecom bust has been nothing short of a nuclear disaster. What really hurt the most is the Bush govt allowing the Ma Bells to regroup after the break up  from the Telecom act of 1986. Between the wireless duopoly(T, VZ), the last mile clout and the access fee regime protection, the incumbents have newer entrants by the $alls. The only real threat working against the incumbents is the disposable income squeeze of consumers. Why Netflix, Youtube, Vonage, Skype et al keep growing. LVLT need not fight this battle, they just need to keep going after enterprise (on net), the golden goose of the incumbents. This is a slow, long process. Happening though!

[Guest longinvestor]

James Crowe to step down at the end of 2013. LVLT does need a facelift, hopefully not a transplant.

[DCG]

James Crowe to step down at the end of 2013. LVLT does need a facelift, hopefully not a transplant.

 

I thought, according to ValueCarl, that James Crowe was a genius that was going to turn this awful company into a powerhouse?

 

Where is ValueCarl these days?

[greenwave]

LVLT  (Level Three Communications)

 

Does anyone here have a "big picture perspective"  on LVLT as relates to the "degree of likeliness"  that they will ultimately become the "Railroad Tracks  " infrastructure choice for high quality and secure global communications ?

 

Any help in laymen’s terms for a better understanding of their prospects over the long term future will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you also for any input you may have as to good related resources ,….(for low-tech brains ).

 

Greenwave

 

 

[constructive]

There's already a thread here:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/lvlt-level-3/1400/

 

And it has the correct title. "Symbol - Company Name"

[T-bone1]

Hi Greenwave,

 

I'm no expert, so if anyone else knows better than me, please correct me.

 

My basic understanding is that LVLT's assets should have become tremendously valuable about ten years ago as Internet traffic increased.  It would be hugely expensive for someone to build new long-haul fiber capacity at this point, even if they could use existing right-of-ways. 

 

So what happened?  As far as I understand it, they developed technology to start putting a LOT more information through these existing pipes.  They did this first with different color/wavelengths of light.  As they developed the technology to add more and more colors without interference, the capacity of the pipes has kept pace with the exponential growth of traffic over these pipes.

 

At this point, I believe we are reaching the limit of how much capacity can be added - but this has been said many times before.  I recently read about a new "corkscrew" laser technology that could lead to another exponential leap.  I don't know enough about the technology to say much more about this.  It seems like capacity is getting close to being constrained . . . For about the fifth time.

 

On the other hand, LVLT has been consolidating the industry and will get more pricing power through this.  The downside is dilution at lower prices.  Someone spoke about this at the Ira Sohn conference and I would look to their thoughts rather than my own. 

 

Not directly related to your question, but SEAM owns a lot (along with other smart investors) and I think the implication is that they have a positive answer to your question.

 

Sorry to not include links to this stuff, but working from my phone in a car (and lazy)

 

Best, t-bone1

[greenwave]

There's already a thread here:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/lvlt-level-3/1400/

 

And it has the correct title. "Symbol - Company Name"

 

------------------

Hi Greenwave,

 

I'm no expert, so if anyone else knows better than me, please correct me.

 

My basic understanding is that LVLT's assets should have become tremendously valuable about ten years ago as Internet traffic increased.  It would be hugely expensive for someone to build new long-haul fiber capacity at this point, even if they could use existing right-of-ways. 

 

So what happened?  As far as I understand it, they developed technology to start putting a LOT more information through these existing pipes.  They did this first with different color/wavelengths of light.  As they developed the technology to add more and more colors without interference, the capacity of the pipes has kept pace with the exponential growth of traffic over these pipes.

 

At this point, I believe we are reaching the limit of how much capacity can be added - but this has been said many times before.  I recently read about a new "corkscrew" laser technology that could lead to another exponential leap.  I don't know enough about the technology to say much more about this.  It seems like capacity is getting close to being constrained . . . For about the fifth time.

 

On the other hand, LVLT has been consolidating the industry and will get more pricing power through this.  The downside is dilution at lower prices.  Someone spoke about this at the Ira Sohn conference and I would look to their thoughts rather than my own. 

 

Not directly related to your question, but SEAM owns a lot (along with other smart investors) and I think the implication is that they have a positive answer to your question.

 

Sorry to not include links to this stuff, but working from my phone in a car (and lazy)

 

Best, t-bone1 

 

----------------------

T-bone 1 ,....and Constructive

 

Thank you very much for your guidance & connecting me with the existing LVLT thread .

 

T-bone, your detailed explanation / historical overview gives me a much better understanding of where I should focus my efforts to learn more about evaluating LVLT 's probablity of long term success .

 

I will read the existing LVLT thread  & google the Ira Sohn conference that you referenced .

 

Thanks again!

Greenwave

 

[brker_guy]

It's been awhile since I have posted on this subject, but I'd thought we give this another try.

 

Don't know if you all heard the good news today(No, LVLT didn't turn the profit!  CNS revenue and EBITDA are growing though...).  The good news of the day is this:

 

http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=809

 

Starbucks and Google will work with Level 3 Communications, an international telecommunications company, to bring faster Wi-Fi connectivity to Starbucks® stores. Level 3 will upgrade existing Wi-Fi devices and will manage in-store connectivity in more than 7,000 company-owned stores across the nation.

 

So, this along with the news of them winning the Apple CDN deal in January, we can expect good thing to come in the second half...

 

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2013/01/level-3-wins-cdn-contract-with-apple-company-delivering-ios-6-downloads.html

 

brker_guy

[Guest longinvestor]

It's been awhile since I have posted on this subject, but I'd thought we give this another try.

 

Don't know if you all heard the good news today(No, LVLT didn't turn the profit!  CNS revenue and EBITDA are growing though...).  The good news of the day is this:

 

http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=809

 

Starbucks and Google will work with Level 3 Communications, an international telecommunications company, to bring faster Wi-Fi connectivity to Starbucks® stores. Level 3 will upgrade existing Wi-Fi devices and will manage in-store connectivity in more than 7,000 company-owned stores across the nation.

 

So, this along with the news of them winning the Apple CDN deal in January, we can expect good thing to come in the second half...

 

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2013/01/level-3-wins-cdn-contract-with-apple-company-delivering-ios-6-downloads.html

 

brker_guy

 

It is a good win, appears that the enterprise strategy is gaining legs. Yet, this is about the 4th maybe 5th or 10th "new ground" that LVLT has broken into, so while #10 comes up with great promise, #1, #2, #3 (remember softswitch, VOIP, e-911 etc etc.) are in run-off, managed for margin etc. It's like when you coral in a prized horse to the stable, there are no back walls in the stable (Or atleast there is a horse sized hole) and the old horses leave through the back way. Churn is permanent at (3).

 

I do like Storey's operational style because he is going after the bloated overhead expenses and does not look like he is pursuing M&A anytime soon. (the M&A's over the years created the bloating surely). I'm glad they seem to have learned the lesson finally. It's about time that they stop being the "natural consolidator" and run the damn network.

 

I'm holding on to my stock for a little while yet but not expecting fireworks anytime soon. Honestly I believe they have put his up for sale for several years now, just not able to execute on it (price/buyer). Temasek (Singapore) will be the one pulling it off, I suppose that is the best thing for (3) given all that has happened.

[brker_guy]

Longinvestor,

 

I can definitely sympathize with what you have said about the long-suffering shareholders of LVLT and the ever-evolving business model of this company.  As I remember it, a few years ago, Jim Crowe was saying that it takes a lot of being a consolidator in that they have to integrate the companies that were bought.  Well, they have done a decent job of integrating Global Crossing, but butchered the other 7 companies that we have bought.  They never cut out the fat at the top, and that what slowed down growth.  I appreciate Jim's efforts and hard work in keeping the company out of BK, but he could have done a lot better.

 

My company was a recent target of a buyout of a big DOW 30 company, and the very first day that company when the deal was closed, that company came in and cut out 15 key executives at the top.  They only kept 3; unfortunately, they kept the wrong 3 key executives.  So, that opened up the flood gate of exodus by key employees below.  So, now they will set up shop and go up against the DOW 30 company... That's the counter argument of cutting the fat at the top.

 

However, I commend Mr. Storey for having the huevos grandes to cut the fat that was long overdue there.  Now, we can focus on bringing the Enterprise model.  They won this SBUX/GOOG deal because they have the metro network in place to do it.  So, it's definitely a good win. 

 

So, here is an idea for the management at LVLT to merge itself and still come out on top.  Sprint just recently got bought by SoftBank, and Sprint is going to run its wireline purely for cashflow right now.  So, if I was Jeff, I would approach SoftBank about merging the S business with our network as well as helping them provision their fiber to the tower.  Check out the article below:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57595175-94/why-sprint-is-taking-its-sweet-time-with-4g-lte/

 

 

 

“Wanted: More fiber

 

Another key problem has been the lack of backhaul, or the connection between the cellular tower and the central network. That link is another crucial part to ensuring the speedy delivery of data. Fiber-optic lines have been the preferred ground connection for next-generation networks.

 

 

Getting fiber through the streets and up buildings and towers has been a difficult task for Sprint.

 

 

A fiber-optic infrastructure has been the key to why T-Mobile has been able to move so quickly. While it only began hanging up its LTE radio in the last few months, the company spent years ensuring its infrastructure was ready to handle the next-generation wireless technology. Even before AT&T had made an offer for T-Mobile two years ago, the company had quietly putting its infrastructure pieces together.”

[Guest longinvestor]

 

So, here is an idea for the management at LVLT to merge itself and still come out on top.  Sprint just recently got bought by SoftBank, and Sprint is going to run its wireline purely for cashflow right now.  So, if I was Jeff, I would approach SoftBank about merging the S business with our network as well as helping them provision their fiber to the tower.  Check out the article below:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57595175-94/why-sprint-is-taking-its-sweet-time-with-4g-lte/

 

 

 

“Wanted: More fiber

 

Another key problem has been the lack of backhaul, or the connection between the cellular tower and the central network. That link is another crucial part to ensuring the speedy delivery of data. Fiber-optic lines have been the preferred ground connection for next-generation networks.

 

 

Getting fiber through the streets and up buildings and towers has been a difficult task for Sprint.

 

 

A fiber-optic infrastructure has been the key to why T-Mobile has been able to move so quickly. While it only began hanging up its LTE radio in the last few months, the company spent years ensuring its infrastructure was ready to handle the next-generation wireless technology. Even before AT&T had made an offer for T-Mobile two years ago, the company had quietly putting its infrastructure pieces together.”

 

All fine with providing Sprint with the infrastructure but there is no need to be the owner, (3) can just be a supplier, a large one.  We have 16 years and 10+ failed consolidations to not do another M&A deal for a while. So then the investment bankers start clamoring for the next deal, TWTC or someone else, suspect that they are trying to dump on us for a big price. I love all the happy talk about "buying X or Y" from analysts like it is hamburgers you are buying. They are trying is to cream you with fees. M&A's seldom work, they definitely have not at (3). So I say, run the D network you have already built. Looks like Storey gets this right.

 

If word on the street is correct, the previous deal with Sprint fell through because the price was not right and (3)'s Balance sheet was not ready for it. I'm actually happy it fell through. Let the deal happen 5 years from now, the price will be more right for (3) because it is a slow turd for Sprint. Later the better.

[txlaw]

So, here is an idea for the management at LVLT to merge itself and still come out on top.  Sprint just recently got bought by SoftBank, and Sprint is going to run its wireline purely for cashflow right now.  So, if I was Jeff, I would approach SoftBank about merging the S business with our network as well as helping them provision their fiber to the tower.  Check out the article below:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57595175-94/why-sprint-is-taking-its-sweet-time-with-4g-lte/

 

brker_guy, as someone who is invested both in LVLT and S, I'd love to see them cooperate in this manner. 

 

I'm ambivalent re: S selling wireline to LVLT, but if it were to solidify a partnership like the one you contemplate, I'd be all for it. 

[brker_guy]

Longinvestor,

 

Honestly I believe they have put his up for sale for several years now, just not able to execute on it (price/buyer). Temasek (Singapore) will be the one pulling it off, I suppose that is the best thing for (3) given all that has happened.

 

I do feel for your frustrations as I am one of those who is like you holding this pig patiently.  There, I said it.  Since the acquisition of Williams from LUK, LVLT did a terrible job of integrating the rest of the companies they acquired and that led to this kind of bloat.  I thought last year would have been a pivotal year for them in giving us growth since their win of the NFLX account, but it wasn't meant to be.  So, now with Storey in charge, I like the direction he has led us so far.

 

So based on what you said in the quote I gave above, I'd thought I tell you my idea.  Here is why I came to that idea.  As TxLaw mentioned, he's interested in S and LVLT; I am a shareholder of S as Softbank just recently completed its takeover.  A few months ago when Softbank's bid first surfaced, I thought that I would cash out of S and move on.  Then came Son-san's passionate plea with the public about his vision of the future right after DISH put in its bid for S.  Then, I realized that Son-san is in it for the long-haul.  He is not buying for a quick cashout.  He is going to be an operator/owner of S for the long-haul.  So, after I received the cash from Softbank recently, I debated about taking all of my money and run for the hills, but then I realized that the shares are being battered for no reason.  Furthermore, with Softbank as the owner, S will be run by a bunch of folks who think about 10-20 years ahead, not 4 quarters ahead. 

 

If LVLT comes in with a deal with S to offer them wireless backhaul capacity while getting the revenue from the S wireline business as part of the deal, that would be ideal.  It help LVLT gains market share while S can roll out its 4G network faster.  The other idea I have about is that since Son-san will be a long-term ower of S, he can take an equity position in LVLT when S is sold to LVLT.  He can take LVLT's network into to Japan and elsewhere while LVLT can get access to the wireless market from S.  It's a win-win for everyone involved.

 

brker_guy

[Guest longinvestor]

Longinvestor,

 

Honestly I believe they have put his up for sale for several years now, just not able to execute on it (price/buyer). Temasek (Singapore) will be the one pulling it off, I suppose that is the best thing for (3) given all that has happened.

 

I do feel for your frustrations ..................

 

If LVLT comes in with a deal with S to offer them wireless backhaul capacity while getting the revenue from the S wireline business as part of the deal, that would be ideal.  It help LVLT gains market share while S can roll out its 4G network faster.  The other idea I have about is that since Son-san will be a long-term ower of S, he can take an equity position in LVLT when S is sold to LVLT.  He can take LVLT's network into to Japan and elsewhere while LVLT can get access to the wireless market from S.  It's a win-win for everyone involved.

 

brker_guy

 

I will welcome S coming to LVLT with a deal (rather than the other way around) because S needs the network much more than (3) needs S's business. Just as the article has, I'm a recent S phone customer, a very dissatisfied one. The lure of "unlimited" brought me to them from VZ but I hate the experience. Bldg penetration is terrible, it is not very often I get 4G at all, so they have two years of my patience to fix this. And I  live in Chicago, supposedly their strong network location.

 

If (3) is their partner to fix it, I say bring it on. Could'nt care less about S, the stock. I have enuff dealing with (3).

[txlaw]

So I've been thinking a bit about Level 3's involvement in the Starbucks/Google deal.  I am wondering whether we could see some more Google deals coming in the near future. 

 

Specifically, Google has announced that it will be bringing Google Fiber to Austin in 2014.  I would love to see LVLT push hard to be involved in that type of venture. 

[brker_guy]

I will welcome S coming to LVLT with a deal (rather than the other way around) because S needs the network much more than (3) needs S's business. Just as the article has, I'm a recent S phone customer, a very dissatisfied one. The lure of "unlimited" brought me to them from VZ but I hate the experience. Bldg penetration is terrible, it is not very often I get 4G at all, so they have two years of my patience to fix this. And I  live in Chicago, supposedly their strong network location.

 

If (3) is their partner to fix it, I say bring it on. Could'nt care less about S, the stock. I have enuff dealing with (3).

 

Longinvestor, I feel your pain on the poor network coverage of S, for I am also a S customer since last November.  Where I live, they barely have any LTE services up and running.  In areas where S have provisioned LTE, they barely could get pass 10Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream.  I could tell that this is due to the lack of spectrum.  Like you, I am giving them 2 years to fix my service.  I am confident that Softbank will do a much better job doing it since they have 78% ownership in S.  They have A LOT to lose than me.

 

TxLaw, Google is slowly but surely push the internet closer to us at home.  So, I am sure we can see a lot more deals similar to SBUX soon.  AT&T brags about their 23,000 WiFi hotspots which they currently run and operate.  So, we can grab a ton of those.  McDonald's account is the next one we ought to go after.  Here is the thing.  For us to have won the SBUX account, our metro fiber network plays a very big key in that.  To win the next big account like SBUX, we can bet that metro fiber will be the key too. 

[brker_guy]

TxLaw,

 

I think you might like this story:

 

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2013/08/parsing-the-starbucksgooglelevel-3-wifi-deal/#more-21898

 

In fact, I think that this deal will sooner or later (and probably sooner) resurrect the rumor that Google could buy Level 3.  And actually, such a thing is starting to actually make sense even to me — and I’ve made a hobby out of shooting down such rumors.

 

Interesting idea eh?

[SI]

Looks like Activist, Corvex has increased their stake to 5mn shares, 60% over the size reported when they presented at Ira Sohn. Longleaf has also upped their stake 2mn shares.

 

Remember, the big deal about Corvex is:

(1) They were the catalyst to sell ABVT(eventually to Zayo).

(2) He was involved with Icahn(who called the guy 'the single biggest money maker to ever work for me) whose long shadow in this space needs no other explanation.

(3) His track record has been excellent. After spinning out of Icahn he made a mint on ABVT, RalCorp, ADT and now CXW as his assets have ballooned from $500mn when launched in Spring 11 to $3bn now.

 

-My opinion here is that this is material. Many have been calling for the final enterprise consolidation. I think this is the catalyst. It may take 2-3 years but I think this could be the match to start that fire. My advice, choose your dance partner wisely.

[txlaw]

Not sure how I missed this, but I just saw this story on Level 3 looking at GTS in Central Europe.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-08/level-3-said-to-vie-with-deutsche-telekom-for-poland-s-gts.html