LVLT - Level 3

[brker_guy]

Carl, I think our readers here to consider signing up for a Clearwire account and support (3), considering the fact that (3) will be hauling a lot of IP traffic for Clearwire that is.  Check out this comparison:

 

http://theclearblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Clear_vs_Verizon_table2.pdf

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, I'm glad you didn't call us "bag holders" like those nefarious Yahooligans do all the time!

 

Yes, I will be exploring Clearwire's opportunity myself, soon, assuming that new map of Los Angeles gets inside of "Ronald Reagan" country sufficiently.

 

I've been thinking about our soon to be appointed Chief Legal Officer, Mr. Ryan, too. I like his style so far, and think he might not be the type of guy who stands down to miscreants!

 

Knowing what we have all been through, it won't be soon enough for me to see (3) take a legal stance against these "NETWORK EXPERTS" and their insidious operators, "IP NERDS" or otherwise.

 

In the spirit of Crowe, "Bring it on!"  ;D

 

         

[brker_guy]

Ah those Yahooligans, those thugs that stole my alias and tried to make fun of it.  Damn those guys!  >:(  One day, they will be squealing like a castrated mule!  I have noticed recently that message board has turned bullish.  Lots of bullish posters on there.  Or may be it's just me and my wishful dreams.  :D

 

Don't know much about our new Chief Justice Ryan at (3) yet, but I am sure we will learn more about him. 

 

Don't know more Clearwire services in your area there in LA, but you can check out this.  I am a low-budget operator.  So, when it comes to tech, low price wins.  Not bad for $99, and $25 per month.  Remember, we need to generate traffic for (3).  Lots and Lots of IP Traffic.

 

http://www.clear.com/devices/details/id/68

 

 

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Thanks for the data points! This is a happening company, Clearwire! An extremely efficient, intelligent marketing machine via their internet platform. Very impressed, and want to see their success.  :D  

[Guest ValueCarl]

You're right again, Brker_guy! Sentiment seems to be doing an about face turn, for our diamond in the rough with its roots from Omaha. I especially enjoy references to "exponential growth rates" that are part Kurzweil's "Technology Strategy," being substantiated on certain venues with names not mentioned.

 

This article this morning is also interesting. At the same time, although it's wonderful that they describe (3) as a "little-known Colorado tech company, Level 3 Communications (Nasdaq: LVLT)," it should trigger thoughts about how this "network partner you can rely on," one who delivers the majority of IP BITS across the known internet universe, has been kept a "SECRET" by its "partners" for so damn long!

 

Say it ain't so, Joe Comcast Waz! When you've enjoyed the kind of RACKET your subscribers have all of these years, with no bearing on your own costs for how you've priced your services, relative to (3)'s $25 Billion in network investments still being TALLIED daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly, in order to drive the internet world's traffic to your end users, one can understand why!

 

A different last mile monopolist, Time Warner's CEO, released comments this morning disparaging Netflix's business model, too, stating he sees it in "DIRECT COMPETITION" to their HBO "premier programming," and not economically viable to be offering to pay so much for "content" associated with their paltry monthly charge at all the "stream" you can eat for $7.99 per month.    

 

This article is yet to be considered a consolation prize; however, as our stock price for whatever dubious reasons still remains in the tank with those Wall Street Sharks!

 

http://www.investmentu.com/2010/December/netflix-creates-multibillion-dollar-industry.html

 

Until the voting machine changes favorably, whether driven by sentiment alone in anticipation of "expectations" like other securities all around us, or it's moved up significantly by a combination of "voting and weighing" factors in combination, I provide us with a song which can depict (3)'s story as well as underlying owners up until today.  

 

 

It's time to put it hard to these naysayers, Brker-guy, for they have done everything legal and illegal in their power, influence and control to delay America's inevitable progress in favor of their own MONOPOLIES.  >:(  

 

Mr. Obama, Jay Rockefeller and whoever else hears me, TEAR DOWN THOSE FRICKEN WALLS! imo 

[Valuemunger]

Carl

 

What would be the current value of LVLT assumming all this mess will result in favour oif LVTL?

 

Thanks

[Guest ValueCarl]

ValueMunger,

 

To me, the value proposition goes a great deal deeper than this "local noise." For this "local noise," will not change the tidal wave of more cost effective IP traffic which the world is going to consume, one way or another!

 

So, the question should be, and I would defer to way smarter minds than my own, including the greatest minds of them all, like your namesake and Buffett; how do you value the most efficient Fiber Factory, with "growing" PP&E standing at $25B real time, in order to reconcile that "footprint" with an addressable market of at least $100B, today-including all lines of their business($5B in CDN is a fraction of (3) sandbox)-and excluding the fact that "bit traffic" because of "video" will be expanding exponentially in conjunction with this shift? Before they took us from slow speed "managed modems" to fast speed, as "share taker," their goals are always to be a greater than 50 percent manager of market share.  

 

If I am not mistaken, I believe I calculated that at today's rates, by the way, if (3)'s fiber factory were filled to its brim completely, that their annual run rate would be $900B! Of course, that might bring questions as to what happens when all their conduits are full, and prices tomorrow, etc. etc.  

 

Crowe said, "Just do the math!"  And, that's what I came up with during his CDN keynote speak which I posted on this board! Without a doubt, he gave sufficient information to do some math.  

 

In summary, (3) is worth somewhere between today's ridiculous ONE DOLLAR PPS, and a HELL of A LOT MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

Now, one would think with an FCC decision after December's EXPIRATION this month, SCOUNDRELS would have to move the PRICE up in anticipation of more "good news" versus bad except for the fact that, maybe, their NETWORK EXPERTS are leading them to different, more accurate CONCLUSIONS????   imo  

           

[Guest ValueCarl]

Speaking of CDN, keynote speakers, and its host, Dan Rayburn, here is an objective, mostly unbiased expert-none of us are completely unbiased, but smart business principles must prevail-has written eloquently about what is at stake here, versus what is not!

 

Mr. Obama, Jay Rockefeller, YOU SOB, tear down those last mile walls, and make certain these SCOUNDRELS are not permitted to PASS ON COSTS, unless "FACTUAL COSTS" to deliver their services are real! imo

 

 

<All of this has me wondering why almost no one has noticed that Level 3 owns the network and has a lower cost which means they can offer a cheaper price in the market to begin with, regardless of whether or not they have to pay Comcast.>

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/239735-comcast-contention-that-level-3-fees-not-about-online-video-is-laughable?source=qp_article 

[Guest ValueCarl]

I think I posted the wrong "article" tied to Dan's "quote" I used in the last post. This is the correct article with more details for that quote! Sorry!

 

<One of the things I've seen some bloggers, Wall Street analysts and readers commenting on regarding the Level 3 and Comcast dispute, is the idea that Level 3 only won the Netflix business with their low price, because Level 3 thought it could get free peering from Comcast. Many also want to imply that Level 3 only won the Netflix deal because of that low price and suggest that Netflix is somehow sacrificing quality by using Level 3, in exchange for saving some money. None of this could be further from the truth.

 

All of this has me wondering why almost no one has noticed that Level 3 owns the network and has a lower cost which means they can offer a cheaper price in the market to begin with, regardless of whether or not they have to pay Comcast.>

 

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2010/12/level-3s-lower-cost-comes-from-owning-the-network-not-free-peering.html

[zarley]

I'll apologize in advance for really not knowing much about Level 3.  I do have a geeky layman's understanding of the unavoidable move to streaming media vs. broadcast media and what seems to be an evergrowing demand for bandwidth.  So, given a market cap of under 2 billion, why wouldn't Comcast, or a Verizon or a Cisco or some other big telco/network player just buy Level 3 outright?  If the value of the pipe is that great, why not sail in with some spare change and buy it whole?

 

Serious question. 

[DCG]

I'll apologize in advance for really not knowing much about Level 3.  I do have a geeky layman's understanding of the unavoidable move to streaming media vs. broadcast media and what seems to be an evergrowing demand for bandwidth.  So, given a market cap of under 2 billion, why wouldn't Comcast, or a Verizon or a Cisco or some other big telco/network player just buy Level 3 outright?  If the value of the pipe is that great, why not sail in with some spare change and buy it whole?

 

Serious question. 

 

Look at the enterprise value, not just market cap. Not that they can't/won't get bought out, but Level 3 has $6.5 Billion in Debt, so a company would have to pay at least $8 Billion for the company and take on a lot of debt. Being that Level 3 makes no profit every year, it would most likely take a while for any potential buyer to make a return on their investment.

[zarley]

pay at least $8 Billion for the company and take on a lot of debt.

 

Shouldn't that be "or" ? 

 

But, yes, the return might be underwhelming in the near-term.  But, if Level 3 is eating your lunch, and/or critical to you service it might be acceptable to have a modest accounting return in the near-term to improve your overall competitive position.

[Guest ValueCarl]

<If the value of the pipe is that great, why not sail in with some spare change and buy it whole?>

 

There's a few reasons, zarley, reasons that must be monitored very carefully by (3), along with their investment partners, especially if NOL's are going to be additive to value as a continuing entity, or one swallowed by another player. Would you have expected Walter Scott and their crew to build an "ENGINEERING MARVEL" without protecting their interests from some legacy network owner using "spare change" in a take under? 

 

Mathematically, we should be thankful that Legg Mason "jumped ship!" 

 

BTW, Jay Rockefeller spit in Crowe's face and cost us some "value" in lost NOL's previously! Thanks for being thankful and supportive of a superior US network asset, you SOB!!!!!! imo 

 

Refer back to some of Brker-guy's as well as my own, comments about the quality of these people tied to being outstanding building engineers, minimally.

 

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter and by-laws could limit the share price and delay a change of management.

        Our restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws contain provisions that could make it more difficult or even prevent a third party from acquiring us without the approval of our incumbent board of directors. These provisions, among other things:

 

•

prohibit stockholder action by written consent in place of a meeting;

 

•

limit the right of stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders;

 

•

limit the right of stockholders to present proposals or nominate directors for election at annual meetings of stockholders; and

 

•

authorize our board of directors to issue preferred stock in one or more series without any action on the part of stockholders.

        In addition, the terms of most of our long term debt require that upon a "change in control," as defined in the agreements that contain the terms and conditions of the long term debt, we make an offer to purchase the outstanding long term debt at either 100% or 101% of the aggregate principal amount of that long term debt.

 

        These provisions could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock and significantly impede the ability of the holders of our common stock to change management. Provisions and agreements that inhibit or discourage takeover attempts could reduce the market value of our common stock.

 

 

If certain transactions occur with respect to our capital stock, we may be unable to fully utilize our net operating loss carryforwards to reduce our income taxes.

        As of December 31, 2009, we had net operating loss carry forwards of approximately $5.2 billion for federal income tax purposes. If certain transactions occur with respect to our capital stock that result in a cumulative ownership change of more than 50 percentage points by 5-percent stockholders over a three-year period as determined under rules prescribed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and applicable regulations, annual limitations would be imposed with respect to our ability to utilize our net operating loss carry forwards and certain current deductions against any taxable income we achieve in future periods.

 

48

 

Table of Contents

 

        We have entered into transactions over the applicable three year period that, when combined with other changes in ownership that are outside of our control, have resulted in cumulative changes in the ownership of our capital stock. Additional transactions that we enter into, as well as transactions by existing 5% stockholders and transactions by holders that become new 5% stockholders that we do not participate in, could cause us to incur a 50 percentage point ownership change by 5% stockholders and, if we trigger the above-noted Code imposed limitations, such transactions would prevent us from fully utilizing net operating loss carry forwards and certain current deductions to reduce income taxes.

 

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/794323/000104746910001553/a2196706z10-k.htm#dq10701_item_7._management_s_discussio__ite03668

[Guest ValueCarl]

Here's a clip in 1997, when Walter Scott Jr. was receiving the Horatio Alger Award, while (3) was just a twinkle in his eye. You'll notice Warren Buffett's comments about him. In other pieces I have seen, Mr. Buffett calls his friend, Mr. Scott, a "great builder."

 

Interesting how Walter Scott grew up during the Great Depression period as well as what he "values," versus that spoon fed, Jay Rockefeller, in comparison. imo   

 

[zarley]

Thanks Carl.  A very interesting situation.  Given my own personal constraints, I'll probably never understand it all well enough to own it directly, but it is an interesting story.

 

        In addition, the terms of most of our long term debt require that upon a "change in control," as defined in the agreements that contain the terms and conditions of the long term debt, we make an offer to purchase the outstanding long term debt at either 100% or 101% of the aggregate principal amount of that long term debt.

 

        These provisions could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock and significantly impede the ability of the holders of our common stock to change management. Provisions and agreements that inhibit or discourage takeover attempts could reduce the market value of our common stock.

 

Does this not, however, put the small/individual shareholder in a relatively poor position?  And so, we get back to the quality of the people in charge. 

[Nnejad]

Hey Carl,

 

A rookie question here and I hope not a terribly naive one... but why will video content be sent centrally and not placed on local servers like most everything else?

[brker_guy]

MR. CARL, YOU DA MAN!!!!!!  My hats off to you, sir!  You are a fountain of news and nuggets.  I grew up watching the Lone Ranger and played around with my brother riding "fake" horses.  So, I am proud of riding along side with you, Lone Ranger!  You know your (3) stuffs for sure!

 

Now, you are beginning to influence me into having a small resentment for that crooked family called the "Rockerfeller".  They should be the "Rock-a-Fellow".  Instead, they are "Rocking-Us-To-New-Low".   :D Yikes!

 

Thanks for sharing your wisdom today.  Regarding your comments earlier this morning about your knowledge on Kurzweil's Technology Strategy, it wouldn't happen to come from a guy with an alias that rhyme with "soil", would it?  ;D  I got to tell you.  Those scoundrels at that board the stole my alias talk out of both sides of their mouths.  They can't make up their minds on going long or short.  BTW: I did find this really cool site from that monkey the other day:

 

http://www.caida.org/research/topology/as_core_network/

 

Speaking of Time Warner CEO's little worried about NFLX getting too big, but he shouldn't go anywhere near the latest Fortune Magazine issue that is about to hit his desk.  Mr. Reed Hastings of NFLX is voted the CEO of THE YEAR by Fortune.  So, be worried Mr. CEO of Time Warner.  BE VERY WORRIED!

 

Regarding Dan Rayburn, it's nice of him to put out some nice articles supporting (3)'s competitive advantage: THE BIG PIPE!  He owes us one BIG TIME!  If it was not for him and his first to the press with the news on NFLX giving (3) and LLNW the streaming contract, those crooks at Comcast wouldn't do this.  It would just be the Trojan Horse coming into the castle for the invasion.  So, in a way, Mr. Rayburn, thank you for standing up for the small guys in us!!  We are close to being even now, Mr. Rayburn.  Please, next time, don't broadcast the Hulu or Apple deal.  We just want a big Trojan Horse to unleash upon those fat cats...

 

Thanks for ALL OF THE WONDERFUL LINKS today, Carl!

[Guest ValueCarl]

Certainly, you are correct about the small investor disadvantage, as well as the quality of the management team for those investors to recoup any prior sins moving ahead. If that investor didn't have the conviction, resources and stomach to buy into hell during its life cycle, this stock may never be dear to them. At the same time, there's still sufficient risk that it might not be dear to others!

 

Then again, as I've always opined, today's dilution, can be tomorrow's share buybacks in addition to a perpetual credit upgrade, refinancing cycle. 

 

Buffett likes 2' hurdles? In all candor, this monster could be seen as clawing the Empire State Building with bare hands and feet.  :(

 

Not for the faint of heart, but certainly, relative to the astronomical risk which has faced it, should be astronomical rewards-at the right price, of course-assuming they succeed.

 

Brker_guy, you're right about the rhyme, of course! :-) If you'd be so kind to pick up on the "central" vs. "local" server distribution question just asked, it would be appreciated!

 

Who do those DAMN ROCKEFELLER's think they are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, of course, with silver on a TEAR,  HI HO Silver!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ;D

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td4RHvyAFsM           

[gaf63]

Carl, the article by Dan Rayburn from streaming media is the best that has been done on the issue between Level 3 and Comcast, thouroughly explains Level 3's position and strengths, and gets to what Comcast is after , thanks

 

here it is again in case anyone is interested

 

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2010/12/level-3s-lower-cost-comes-from-owning-the-network-not-free-peering.html

 

[brker_guy]

Lone Ranger, this Hi-Ho Silver I am riding with you  on is quite rough.  ;D  Hopefully, we will find green pastures soon with our horses.

 

We shouldn't be encouraging anymore riders unless they have the stomach for this horse.

 

but why will video content be sent centrally and not placed on local servers like most everything else?

 

Nnejad, I believe I addressed this in this same thread.  Check Post #28 on November 11th from me on it.  Then read on after that, and it will explain why having a fiber network to transmit large objects like video is a HUGE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE if you are a CDN vendor.

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

You know my target is $40, right? I don't want to be greedier than the Hunts Brothers nearly three decades ago!  ;D

 

With (3), there is always some force riding ROUGHSHOD over us, but we'll get to the green pastures! ;)

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, here's what I am thinking tonight after reading Congresswoman Maxine Water's plea to the FCC. Not a big supporter of her or Rangel, as you might know, but she does bring up some excellent points in her letter. 

 

I think Dan Rayburn has finally begun to address the nuts and bolts in the correct manner before emotion, as well as ignorance surrounding the complex schemes from which communication networks interact and function, begins to set in. Gaf63 has it right! Dan's analysis today is one of the best pieces I have ever seen written on the subject of peering and more!

 

The formula going forward must be: Expert+Education+Economics minus Emotion=Pricing Solution.

 

If Comcast can't prove an "economic burden," there should be no cost added to their "end users," or profit margin detractors tacked onto 3rd parties who choose not to pass on this Comcast burden to their own customers.  If we're going to watch this matter get taken to "the clouds," in the form of "cloud drawings" and/or other technical jargon, then damn it, it better not get CLOUDY by people not intimately knowledgeable about the technical and economic matters truly at stake!

 

This should be the catalyst for revamping the entire system as Crowe has discussed for years now, in order to reach a fair system of "exchanging" back and forth communication "bits," no different than freight for the internet, a medium the current regulatory scheme and compensation systems hadn't contemplated.   

 

Otherwise, we'll be left with fees resembling remnant taxes left over from "The Spanish/American War," which hadn't left our local US phone bills except for a few years ago! I still wouldn't be surprised if the VZ, and T's of the world who were charging us for it and not identifying it for what it was on our bills, weren't using those revenue buckets that they were gate keepers over, as profit centers! 

 

The way Comcast is attempting to dupe our nation in this matter, is how FAKE INFLATION ensues! It's a cancer that must be stopped!

 

Here's Maxine Waters, and I need you to explain in simplest terms, the significance as you see it, of that IPv4 and IPv6 chart you provided, when you get a chance.

 

Chairman

Federal Communications Commission

445 Twelfth Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

 

Dear Chairman Genachowski,

 

As a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, I write to once again convey my ongoing concerns about the impact the Comcast-NBC merger could have on consumers and competition within the already heavily-consolidated media industry.  If Cablevision’s recent retransmission dispute with News Corporation (News Corp.) over the fees it pays the media conglomerate were not compelling enough, then three recent direct allegations against Comcast Corporation’s online and cable operations should warrant the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) close examination.  Although the Commission’s 180-day merger review deadline passed on November 25th, I urge the FCC to carefully review these new allegations, along with the voluminous record of the current merger proceeding, and ensure that if the Comcast-NBC combination is approved, it is conditioned upon substantive commitments that will promote media diversity, competition, and consumer protections.

 

First, the New York Times reported this week that Comcast Corporation – which has its own on-demand content streaming and pay-per-view movie services – imposed a recurring fee on Level 3 Communications (the backend service provider that streams Netflix movies to online consumers) in exchange for allowing the company to continue streaming Netflix content to consumers without service disruption.

 

Comcast reportedly threatened to cut its customers’ access to Netflix unless Level 3 pays a new fee for the transmission. In efforts to justify the action, the company contends that Netflix consumes a significant amount of its online traffic and should be assessed higher fees than a low-bandwidth online site.  This was undoubtedly one of the principle reasons behind their decision to block online peer-to-peer file sharing site BitTorrent – an action the company denied before the Commission discovered Comcast had indeed limited Internet users’ access to the website.

 

While Comcast’s argument has some merit – sites such as Google’s YouTube and Netflix consume more network traffic than a “MomAndPop.com” – the implications and dynamics change once the colossal cable operator and Internet Service Provider (ISP) in question stands to gain ownership over all of NBC Universal’s online, cable, and motion picture properties.  The FCC should also consider this recent development in light of Comcast’s launch of “XFinity” this year – the corporation’s own movie streaming service.  There are currently no regulatory standards in place that could prevent Comcast from driving out competing online services in order to offer its own content streaming site with a new full catalog of Universal Pictures, Focus Features films, NBCU cable shows (NBC, Bravo, SyFy, and Style), and other online content offered through Hulu.

 

Comcast Corporation has 23 million cable customers and provides Internet service to 15 million Americans.  In this context, Netflix was compelled to pay the fee so that its customers would avoid service interruptions.  Ironically, this illustration parallels the recent dispute between Cablevision and Newscorp.  In the same way that cable customers lose service when cable operators are unable to reach an agreement with broadcasters, online customers lose access to broadband service (or the quality of that service) when ISPs and online content providers fail to reach a contractual agreement.  In my estimation, each of these disputes hinge on market leverage and dominance. The stakes favor the company that can exert greater pressure, and Comcast stands to gain an unprecedented amount of market power under the proposed merger.  In any case, the customer is held hostage, and if Comcast gains control of NBC Universal, we do not fully understand the potential impact the merged entity will have on the market. However, we do know that cable prices will continue to increase and customers will continue to suffer periodic service disruptions (such as the unprecedented Comcast Internet service outage that impacted millions of customers along the eastern United States on November 29th) and blackouts caused by corporate retransmission disputes.

 

Secondly, the Commission must also consider the Tennis Channel’s very serious allegations that Comcast provides its own networks and content with preferential treatment.

 

The Tennis Channel claims that Comcast favors its own similarly situated networks, such as Versus Network and the Golf Channel, by placing them on more widely-viewed tiers. The complaint stems from Comcast's decision to keep the Tennis Channel on a premium sports tier rather than a more broadly distributed programming tier. In the same manner that public interest groups have raised concerns that the company could discriminate against competing online services through predatory pricing schemes, competing cable networks may also suffer under similar anticompetitive practices. Since the two companies were unable to reach an agreement in mediation, the claims will now be heard before one of the Commission’s judges.

 

Lastly, on November 29th, modem manufacturer Zoom Telephonics filed a complaint at the Commission against Comcast.  The complaint outlines a string of facts alleging that the cable operator is restricting consumer access to innovative devices by controlling the approval process for cable modems.  Similar to the Tennis Channel complaint, this allegation reflects a pattern and practice of anticompetitive business practices. While the FCC has yet to announce the hearing date for the Tennis Channel’s complaint, and we do not know whether Zoom’s complaint will be heard before an FCC judge, I do not believe the Comcast-NBC merger should be approved before the facts and details of both allegations are fully disclosed to the public.

 

I do hope you and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will consider the very serious public interest concerns outlined above while conducting your Comcast-NBC merger review.  If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

 

Sincerely,

 

Maxine Waters

 

Member of Congress 

 

 

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Expert network owner, (3), moves to educate Mr. Market including the economics behind internet interconnections this morning.

 

Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today issued the following statement.

 

Level 3 and Comcast have been in a disagreement over Comcast’s announced intention to demand an ongoing payment from Level 3 and others for delivering content to Comcast, such as movies, that Comcast’s subscribers have requested. Comcast has said repeatedly that “this is just a good old fashioned peering dispute” and that Level 3 is just trying to gain “an unfair advantage over its competitors by gaining enormous capacity at no cost to itself.” Comcast’s characterization could not be more misleading. What is truly at stake is whether consumers should have unfettered access to all the content on the Internet without regard to whether that content happens to be owned or packaged by Comcast.

 

http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=491&PR=965

[Guest ValueCarl]

I must applaud my (3) management team for this outstanding educational piece they have provided to the marketplace this morning!  ;D Talk about hitting the cover off of the ball! Remember that 5:1 traffic ratio LIE that Joe Waz and his ring pounding engineer were trying to emphasize!

 

Now, the next thing I'd like to see is that, the Comcast director who sits on the Berkshire Hathaway Board with Messrs. Buffett and Scott, comes out with a statement in "support" of (3), sending a resounding message to his Comcast clan including that Roberts Family,  that they are acting in a discriminatory manner with no basis for levying this charge against (3), or its customer Netflix, whose Comcast customers are craving to have in their living rooms!

 

If America is going to have a fighting chance moving ahead with the internet at their backs empowering multiple aspects of their work and play lives, we must have fair and balanced leaders addressing the "economic crux" of this crucial medium, honestly and intelligently for the purpose of its long term "sustainability," lest it will become a "dumbed down," highly "controlled" version of the traditional distribution outlets in our homes that have handicapped us for way too long now! imo     

[brker_guy]

Carl, we do think alike!!!  ;D ;D  My favorite has to be Question #8:

 

8. Q: Comcast says that Level 3 sends it 5 times the traffic that Comcast sends Level 3. Is that true? If it is true, why shouldn’t Level 3 pay for the traffic it sends to Comcast?

 

 

 

A: It is true, and not surprising, that the traffic going to Comcast subscribers is much greater than the traffic coming from Comcast subscribers. It is also totally irrelevant to the issue of whether a broadband access provider like Comcast is entitled to payment of a toll.

 

 

 

Comcast is attempting to transform the dispute with Level 3 into a peering dispute because, if it is successful in re-casting the debate, one of the traditional criteria for peering – balance of traffic sent versus traffic received – could be used to turn even the largest Internet backbone providers into paying customers of Comcast. Why? Because the vast majority of the traffic on Comcast’s consumer broadband access network is requested by and flows to Comcast residential subscribers. This means that all of the traffic on Comcast’s consumer access networks is and will be decidedly “out of balance” (meaning more traffic flows to Comcast than flows away from Comcast). This is true of any network that provides residential Internet access to consumers. When a Comcast subscriber, for example, wants to view a television show, sporting event or movie, the subscriber “sends” a very small request (in terms of bandwidth used), and receives back a very large amount of content. In fact, Comcast’s service guarantees that Comcast will remain “out of balance.” Comcast’s offering provides residential subscribers with as much as 5 times the “download” speed (traffic going to subscribers) as “upload” speed (traffic coming from subscribers).

 

Thus, Comcast knows that if it can apply a traditional backbone “peering” concept to this dispute – that traffic must stay in balance – Comcast stands to make many millions of dollars from Internet backbone carriers that bring requested content to Comcast for delivery to Comcast’s subscribers.

 

I told you that video is a beast to deal with, didn't I?  This is just the beginning because only monopolist ISP is playing bully with (3).  Wait til VZ and T-Rex get into the act.  All HELL will break loose if the FCC doesn't do anything...

 

Regarding that chart.  It compares the AS rankings by carriers of IP4 vs IP6.  Notice the total number of IP4 AS and IP6 AS that LVLT the controls?  Notice the amount is identical?  That's because LVLT has built this network for the future.  Now, take a look at the number of AS that Internet2 has and ask yourself, "Geez, I wonder who puts in that Internet2 infrastructure".  :D  K-ching!!!!!  I give you one hint: It ISN'T Qwest...  This is probably that other internet that Mr. Sunit was referring to, I think.  :D