LVLT - Level 3

[Guest ValueCarl]

Thanks Brker_guy! Indeed, I do understand that Internet 2 is (3)'s backbone!

 

When I ponder this political chess game at the pinnacle of this dispute, with stealth players in the back ground intent on protecting former monopolists from allowing "freedom" principles cross our nation's communication wires, as well as the rest of the globe, it makes me want to send at the "SPEED OF LIGHT" messages to West Virginians to throw that SOB, ARISTOCRAT, Jay Rockefeller from the Rockefeller Dynasty out on his ass from his life long Senate seat!

 

"Career politicians," including those with "untold wealth" and roots that are like his, should be the anathema of The American People!

 

The STUPID things that man has been saying about the internet recently, should be a TELEGRAPH for what a DESPOT he is!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The people need to throw his ass out!!!!!!!!! imo 

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

Rob Powell put together an interesting "poll" at his website today. For those board members who have been following this story unfold, it would be great if you went there to cast your own votes. I think you'll find his method for establishing the poll(3 votes per person), most interesting for getting to the core of where public consensus might be. It should be noted that the players who permeate his world, are telecom and internet professionals from all spaces and sectors, including the "regulatory body." Whether that makes the results more or less biased, or more or less correct, may or may not be debatable.       

 

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2010/12/poll-what-do-you-think-of-the-level-3comcast-dispute/#comment-5377

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, I believe I found at least $750MM(approx. 45 cents per share) in unrecognized real estate value on (3)'s balance sheet, conservatively, with a landmark real estate purchase made by Google in Manhattan this week.

 

This excludes the fact that their purchase of this important "fiber connecting facility" where (3) and others connect in their newly owned building, will be important for Google's "streaming business" tied to their "video on demand" offerings, and corresponding DRM purchase just made. 

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2010/12/03/google-buys-digital-video-company-widevine-building-up-video-on-demand-service/?partner=alerts

 

Here's the trophy property in Manhattan they bought officially, with a corresponding link identifying facts inside 111 Eighth Ave., N.Y.C.

 

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/keyDevelopments?rpc=66&symbol=GOOG.O&timestamp=20101203004900 

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/google_big_buy_LnX2C7z2P4xYYFjlDNk96L

 

It appears they ended up paying about $655 per sq. ft. for this premier space.

 

In (3)'s case, of the 7.2M sq. feet of real estate in their portfolio, approx. 20 percent is owned versus leased, with as much as 25 percent owned.

 

If we discount the premium Manhattan property "price" by 20 percent, assuming (3)'s strategic locations around the nation are still mostly premier connecting points, especially the ones they own, then we can apply a conservative $525 price per sq. ft. to their conservative 20 percent owned portfolio and come up with this:

 

1.44M sq. ft.* $525 per sq. ft.=$756MM/1.670B shares outstanding or .45 per share in value.

 

What do you think about this math, and what might you add or subtract? Is this only for bondholders to feast on, or will there be food left over for starving equity owners?  ;D 

 

   

[PlanMaestro]

 

If we discount the premium Manhattan property "price" by 20 percent,

   

 

At least in CRE and apartment buildings, the Manhattan premium is much higher than that. Do not know much about this type of facilities and their equipment.

[Guest ValueCarl]

Thanks PlanMaestro. I suppose one must also factor in the fact that, this is a "mixed use" building not "purely" a technological or data center hub. If we are to believe that real estate with "DIGITAL CAPABILITIES" moving ahead are more valuable than others which may not be, it may very well make this price lower than what it might have been otherwise, and my discounted number even higher.  ;D

 

 

<At 2.9 million square feet, the coveted piece of real estate is valued at almost $1.9 billion, the report says, citing sources familiar with the matter.

The report says one-third of the space in the building is occupied by telecommunication companies with Google currently occupying about 500,000 square feet of the building.

According to a report by Data Center Knowledge, tenants in the building include data center operations for Digital Realty Trust, Equinix and Telx as well as Deutsche Bank, Barnes & Noble, Armani, Nike and Lifetime Networks.>

 

http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/120310_Google_to_Acquire_111_8th_Avenue_Data_Center_in_New_York

[Guest ValueCarl]

One other more important fact, PlanMaestro, might include the content of the articles I submitted especially as respects how "expensive" power is in "The Empire State" making Google less likely to turn to it for "massive amounts" of its services.

 

"It's the cost of power, Stupid," that might also add value to (3)'s facilities in the form of "price per sq. ft." too, while understanding their recent conferences and access to the capital markets for investing in "portions" of their valuable real estate portfolio specifically. These investments would be ongoing during the next couple of years.

 

 

   

[brker_guy]

Super ValueCarl, you are always on top of these findings and nuggets.  Thanks for sharing.  Makes me want to have a startup in NY and have Google come to snatch it up.  ;D 

 

In reality though, I don't think (3) can fetch that much per sq. ft for its real estate value.  We need to figure out, may be with (3)'s help, where they own that 20% of the 7.2 mil sq. ft. of space.  A few years ago, I came across a similar scenario with a company that has the same real estate properties as (3) and tried to put some metric to its real estate value but was told that it was worth only $200 per sq. ft.  Granted the company was a totally different industry than (3), but they own some nice properties in FL and CA.

 

So, "location location location" as the saying goes in real estate.  Conservatively, we should put a price of $200-$300 per sq. ft to that 1.44mil sq. ft. of unrealized value in the balance sheet.  Anything else would be icing on the cake.  :D

[Guest ValueCarl]

Thanks Brker_guy, but when I began speculating in (3), I wasn't looking for nuggets, even gold nuggets which hold some value. Rather, I was attempting to purchase "Fort Knox" with sufficient gold inside that hadn't been "looted" yet. That's a two pronged meaning for inquiring minds.  ;D   

 

I guess 17 cents per o/s share is better than a sharp stick in the eye, but the best case for our enterprise value must continue to come from those missing "SALES ANNOUNCEMENTS" I keep waiting to see!

 

Where's my Amazon, and Apple confirmations?

 

Better still, what's taking my government so long to "outsource" to "the network partner you can rely on!"  ;)   

[Guest ValueCarl]

What are we going to do, Brker_guy? Dan is talking from another part of what seems like a two sided mouth again! This time he says that, Netflix is not a threat to "pay t.v." because of its inability to access "same time broadcasting" by networks including Comcast's, of course. Then, he goes on to question their ability to finance "licensing" sufficient content as part of that threat. So, if it's not a threat to Comcast's own content, is Comcast levying this tax of Caesar because they're altruistic?

 

Comcast's own spokeswoman, Cindy Parsons, no relationship to Dick Parsons unless I missed an interracial marriage which is not impossible, says that Netflix as well as their stake in Hulu are "complimentary" to their pay t.v. offerings, in a most alluring manner. Who would have thunk it!

 

I want to pick up on Big Dick Parsons, however.

 

Why? Because he's the current Chairman of Citibank, always negative about (3), as well as the former Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Cable, another part of the oligopoly inside "the last mile."

 

But the most interesting history tied to Big Dick, excluding his adulterous affairs resulting in bastards or worse, remains his Rockefeller connections. Quite a move up for a man whose grandfather was the "groundskeeper" for The Rockefeller Dynasty.

 

I tell you, Brker_guy, you couldn't make this stuff up! imo

       

 

Netflix and others like it also can't offer TV episodes at the same time that they're broadcast, making them less of a threat to steal pay-TV subscribers, said Dan Rayburn, executive vice president of StreamingMedia.com, an industry news site.

"I don't think it's a threat in the short term simply because the content that Netflix has still isn't first-run," Rayburn said. "It's not newer content, and that's what you're watching on broadcast."

But Netflix, which started as a mail-in DVD rental service, has already changed the landscape of an industry. The company's rise played a big role in the demise of Blockbuster, once the dominant force in movie rentals.

For a monthly subscription of $7.99, Netflix users get unlimited online access to more than 20,000 movies and TV episodes.

In August, Netflix agreed to pay a reported $1 billion over five years for online rights to films from MGM, Paramount Pictures and Lions Gate, including newer releases.

"How many of those sized deals can Netflix do?" Rayburn asked. "How much money does Netflix really have to spend on licensing?"

 

 

Read more: Battle for America's TVs underway - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16774971?source=rss#ixzz17HxDamMw

Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

 

Prominent connections

From the early 1980s through much of the 1990s, Parsons owned a house at Rockefeller family estate in Pocantico Hills, (see Kykuit), where his grandfather was once a groundskeeper. For a brief time he had worked for Nelson at the family office, Room 5600, at Rockefeller Center (he currently has a Time Warner office in Rockefeller Plaza at the Center).[2]

Parsons is chairman emeritus of the Partnership for New York City,[7] established by David Rockefeller in 1979,[8] who has known him for many years. He is an advisory trustee of the family's principal philanthropy, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and he sits with David Rockefeller on the board of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation. Parsons is also on the board of the family created Museum of Modern Art.

In 2001, United States President George W. Bush selected Parsons to co-chair a commission on Social Security. Parsons also worked on the transition team for Michael Bloomberg, who was elected Mayor of New York City in 2001. In 2006, Parsons was selected to co-chair the transition team for the incoming Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.[9]

In August 2006, an article in New York Magazine reported that Parsons would likely run for Mayor of New York City in the 2009 New York mayoral election.[10] Parsons, however, repeatedly denied the reports[11], supported Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to repeal the term limits law and supported Bloomberg for a third term in office.[12]

Parsons is now a member of the economic advisory team for President Barack Obama. He met with the then President-elect on Friday, November 7, 2008, along with many other economic experts, to discuss measures to solve the current economic crisis. After New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson withdrew his name from consideration for the position of Secretary of Commerce in the Obama Administration, Parsons's name was floated as a possible nominee.[13]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parsons_(businessman)

[brker_guy]

What are we going to do, Brker_guy? Dan is talking from another part of what seems like a two sided mouth again! This time he says that, Netflix is not a threat to "pay t.v." because of its inability to access "same time broadcasting" by networks including Comcast's, of course. Then, he goes on to question their ability to finance "licensing" sufficient content as part of that threat. So, if it's not a threat to Comcast's own content, is Comcast levying this tax of Caesar because they're altruistic?

 

Comcast's own spokeswoman, Cindy Parsons, no relationship to Dick Parsons unless I missed an interracial marriage which is not impossible, says that Netflix as well as their stake in Hulu are "complimentary" to their pay t.v. offerings, in a most alluring manner. Who would have thunk it!

 

I want to pick up on Big Dick Parsons, however.

 

Why? Because he's the current Chairman of Citibank, always negative about (3), as well as the former Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Cable, another part of the oligopoly inside "the last mile."

 

But the most interesting history tied to Big Dick, excluding his adulterous affairs resulting in bastards or worse, remains his Rockefeller connections. Quite a move up for a man whose grandfather was the "groundskeeper" for The Rockefeller Dynasty.

 

I wouldn't worry about Mr. Rayburn, Carl.  He's an industry analyst.  They are getting paid to take both sides of the coin.  As long as he lives up to his words that he doesn't own any equity in any of these companies that he cover, I am okay with going with him as an industry source.  I am speaking here as a former NFLX shareholder.  In a way, I kinda agree with him on the fact that Netflix is not a threat to any "pay t.v.".  He is right on that.  It's not easy getting to the cable/telecom business.  You got to deal with the PUCs.  Those beaurocrats are the reasons why (3) and its peers are having this last mile problem.  You have seen companies like Fox which owns contents also own DirecTV.  You see Time Warner owning studios at the same time owning Time Warner Cable.  Soon, you will see Comcast owning NBC Universal Studios.  So, who is left?  Viacom and Disney.  So, may be it's time Disney or Viacom starts thinking about a new way to distribute contents via NFLX and LVLT?  Who knows?  It can happen, but I don't think NFLX will be a big threat to likes of Comcast, DirecTV or TWC....  Heck, even Mr. Tilson is betting against NFLX:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/12/03/benzinga667405.DTL

 

A little bit of beatdown might do NFLX some good.  ;D

 

Remember awhile back when I referred to Mr. Redstone's legendary quote, "Content is King"?  Well, it will be a long while before NFLX can prove that statement wrong. 

 

In August, Netflix agreed to pay a reported $1 billion over five years for online rights to films from MGM, Paramount Pictures and Lions Gate, including newer releases.

"How many of those sized deals can Netflix do?" Rayburn asked. "How much money does Netflix really have to spend on licensing?"

 

Dan is right on this...  It costs a lot of money to get contents from Hollywood where "content is king".  The best we can do is for someone with the likes of NFLX can step up and add some boost to LVLT's revenue like the U.S. Govt, Amazon(I did my part this XMas for Amazon :-)), Apple, Hulu or even Google.

[brker_guy]

Carl, one more note. 

 

Check this out.  I find this to be interesting.  Take a look at this annoucement from Comcast on their Xfinity service:

 

http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=1020

 

Now, is it a coincident that they launched it on that date versus the time when (3) won the NFLX deal? 

 

Also, I don't know if you saw this:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024571-266.html

 

Comcast also issued this response to Level 3's latest claims:

 

"Level 3 has said nothing new.  The fact remains this is a business dispute regarding traffic ratios, commonly referred to as peering, between Comcast and Level 3 which we are committed to resolve fairly and consistently with established industry principles.  Industry experts and analysts overwhelmingly agree,  as their commentary has shown all week long.  The most important thing to know about this dispute is that Comcast will do absolutely nothing to impact  our high-speed Internet customers, who can and will be able to access any Internet content they want, including streaming video from all sources."

 

The sheer arrogance of Comcast is amazing!!!

[Guest ValueCarl]

This morning, I think Powell has broached nicely upon why other CDN's should not be wishing for an unfavorable outcome for (3) in this matter. "Be careful what you wish for."

 

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2010/12/comcastlevel3-should-other-cdns-care/

 

At the same time, I wonder how indicative the ongoing results from his poll are, compared to Comcast's claims otherwise.

 

 

Lastly, I guess it's a fair question to ask Comcast why traffic has not been "balanced" with their peering partners up until today? If equal traffic exchange is the goal, why have they been so liberal up until now?  Once again, we're back to that 5:1 ratio in download vs. upload speeds, and they know the reason for that.   

[brker_guy]

Carl, of course, they know the reason for that.  Up until now, VOIP and data downloads are the killer apps for the last miles guys.  All of the sudden, they get this unexpected VOD via the internet that is hitting their routers at warp speed(sorry, I am a Startrek guy  ;D).  Now, they figure out how to police it.  So, they put up tolls.

 

You kow, Carl, what is really interesting is the link to Carl's article.  The guy took the Comcast POV.  The Charlie Munger wannabe in me wants to hear what this dude has to say:

 

http://jet-stream.nl/blog/2010/12/comcast-vs-level3/

 

However, what is more telling is the link to the Comcast letter to the FCC:

 

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html

 

Content delivery networks ("CDNs"), such as Akamai, Limelight, and Amazon CloudFront, are not Internet backbone providers. Their business involves sending significantly more traffic than they receive. For that reason they typically purchase services ("paid interconnection") from Internet backbone providers. This description is not just relevant to how Comcast operates -- rather, it is a characterization of the way the Internet market works, here and around the world.

 

Those statements right there by "magical hand" Joe tell the story of how owning an Internet backbone gives (3) a price advantage.  That's why a lot of people would say that (3) low-ball the CDN business to grab it from pure CDN vendors.  That's pure rubbish!  It's BECAUSE of their internet backbone that gives (3) a price advantage over the likes for AKAM and others...  Now, Comcast feel threatened...

 

Go ask QCOM how it felt to go from a CDMA inventors to just a CDMA chipsets maker and along the way, morphed itself a few times from truck trackers, base station makers, handset maker, and now CDMA chipsets and a wireless CDN wannabe (i.e. FloTV)...

[brker_guy]

Carl, did you see this about Google's $1.9BIL acquisition?  Look who is the tenant of this address is:

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YWGt2csVNZwJ:www.smartdatacenter.com/locations/New_York_1_Gateway.pdf+%22Level+3+New+York+1+Gateway&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjgNmPq3EXZ-tL95Zs-GRVz2vclmBxEzvgeiyMZ4bVY46dHoOlrE13Nrqr9RSDrM_sYfoosjZetORB9UVw4xyun4N0Uq9npjHd5q3zQ2f0Ze_JzjtXntclUw_5mnvLSrxzsTxcX&sig=AHIEtbRnIFGJpUNk4eIElpSZSFX9q7GPvw

[Guest ValueCarl]

Brker_guy, a few things are infuriating me today as we focus on that "shenanigan" that the market makers and their cohorts did to us on Day 9 of the 10 day requirement for us to be "removed" from the incumbent "delisting risk." You will recall that we closed sufficiently above one dollar pps on the "bid" each day of the ten day requirement excluding that ninth day, when apparently, the bid was deemed at "less than" one price per share, even though the stock closed at $1.00 flat.

 

They would have needed to do that in order to carve up a one "penny move" into hundredths based upon supply/demand factors as they are doing again today. How convenient to keep us in prison while this situation, more than likely, a "FIX" in favor of the oligopolists that is going to be heard.

 

What are they going to say after that, however, when pondering the fact that (3)'s position trumps every "peering" chump as partially described in Powell's piece this morning, and toddforthree before him?            

 

We are dealing with criminals at the highest level in the market, so much so that, taking out our muskets against them, would not be inappropriate!

 

You see, we are dealing with "Street Gang Banger" mentalities, though far more dangerous as a result of somewhat higher I.Q.'s!

 

Did you see what Big Dick Parson's newest successor at Time Warner Cable had to say today?

 

What else should we have expected him to say! imo    

 

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) Chief Executive Glenn Britt said Monday that a recent dispute between Comcast Corp. (CMCSA, CMCSK), the nation's largest cable company, and Level 3 Communications Inc. (LVLT) is unrelated to the so-called 'net neutrality' debate and doesn't mark a new development in negotiations between broadband networks.

 

Level 3 recently accused Comcast of violating the Federal Communications Commission's guidelines governing the way broadband providers manage traffic on their networks by demanding compensation in return for an expected increase in traffic stemming from Level 3's new partnership with Netflix Inc. (NFLX), an online video provider that is widely viewed as a competitor to cable companies.

 

Britt said Comcast was following a longheld practice for broadband networks of receiving payments from other networks as compensation for imbalances in the flow of web traffic.

 

"If the traffic is way out of balance, somebody pays someone else," Britt said at an investor conference here. "That's the way it has always worked."

 

Comcast made a similar argument in defending its actions towards Level 3.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101206-709795.html

[brker_guy]

Of all of these sufferings we are enduring, my (3) friend, I hope there is hope at the end of tunnel for us.  Better yet, I hope there is good Karma coming our way soon.

 

Of all the things that (3) has done to help the MSOs and the other CLECs to have somewhat of an edge to compete with the Baby Bells since the tech bubble days, I find that this is like a slap in the face for payback that we did for those SOBs.  There are those who accused (3) on Powell's board for taking a naive stance on "net neutrality".  Well, this is the results of that neutrality that we took.  It's so typical that one MSO would come out to support another MSO.  Next thing we know, we will have the likes of the bells demanding ransoms from us for delivering NFLX contents.  Sick...sick...sick!!! 

 

Envy makes people do crazy things. 

 

"If the traffic is way out of balance, somebody pays someone else," Britt said at an investor conference here. "That's the way it has always worked."

 

One day he will find out how bad it is to be having NO CUSTOMERS left.  It's time for the the real Tier-1 carriers and the content owners(Disney and Viacom - I am talking about YOU GUYS!!!!) to unite and take on these last mile bullies...

[FFHWatcher]

Dear Brker_guy and ValueCarl, I am long Level 3 and I therefore started reading your thread on Level 3.  At first I was able to keep up with the postings but now I read them really quickly, as I do have other holdings and other things going on in my life.  On one hand, I greatly appreciate the time each of you have spent on sharing your thoughts and in depth research into Level 3 and the entire industry.  On the other hand, I have this little devil on my shoulder suggesting to me that your discussion is verging on one that I am more likely to read on the Yahoo Message Boards where people's motives are other than noble. 

 

I do not know enough about each of you or the industry to make any sort of conclusions.  In all the years since I have been a member of Sanjeev's board, I never remember having any doubt as to a writers intentions with their posts and this is the first time that I can remember where only two participants have dominated such a long discussion topic with such volume and regularity. 

 

If each of your intentions are noble, than as I fellow shareholder, I wholeheartedly thank each of you for taking so much time with helping all of us better understand Level 3 and the market in which they operate.  Let me assure you, I am not trying to offend either of you but I suppose I just find your discussion out of the ordinary for this board.  Perhaps the two of you are just overly passionate about L3, and I have mistaken that passion for dubious behavior?  Can you set me straight?

[Guest Bronco]

What is worth more (market cap), Endicott Steel or Level Three?

[Guest Bronco]

Trick question - one is fictional and has no value, and the other just has no value.

[Guest ValueCarl]

I can't speak for Brker_guy, FFHWatcher, but passion might be an understatement for what I believe is at stake in the US last mile, with or without Level 3 Communications(LVLT) in the mix. Assuming we are to witness these oligopolists have their way, the internet will become the same "controlled box," one overloaded with the mindless, stupid programming that mass audiences are still being fed daily today. I greatly desire that doesn't become the case!

 

Since you're a (3) owner and watcher also, I wondered what significance you found in this PR today, one which was released on the company's site but nowhere else? I've always found (3)'s PR's to be strategic in nature, even when the content seems innocuous. 

 

http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=491&PR=966

 

 

Bronco, were you referring to Anacot Steel or Kennecott Copper? If the former, you and Gordon Gekko should get a room to share your inside information, if the latter, it was one of my very early investments in commodities or commodity related companies at the beginning of a copper recession, one that luckily, my pain was alleviated early as a result of a very healthy "buy out" compared to my prices paid!

 

Then again, maybe your "trick question" is a Tale of Two Cities, and you're encrypting two meanings for my benefit. Thanks!

 

How much would I take for my (3) shares today? Let the bidding war begin! imo           

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Bronco]

Anacot steel.

 

 

[brker_guy]

FFHWatcher, sorry to come across as hogging this thread.  Not intended to be that way on my part.  I have my start in the digital video business.  So, this business of CDN is kind of in my blood.  Ever since (3) got the NFLX deal back, I thought we are on our ways back up.  However, I didn't expect that one of their main customers would throw a wrench into (3)'s plan like that.  So, it was shocker for me to see this development, but I should have seen it coming.  The last thing I want to see is this board turned into the useless Yahoo! message board.  That would be a travesty. 

 

Anyway, if you have any useful information about (3) for all of us to learn from you, I welcome it.  Don't be shy.  I am not here to dominate this board.  Just want to share what I know about (3) and the industry...  Best of luck to you!

[Guest Bronco]

Brkr - u seem like a nice person.  Maybe better off buying apple instead of this bow wow with an extra order of fleas.

[brker_guy]

Bronco, thanks for the kind words and the investment advice.  I  have told myself that a few times about AAPL as well.  Had my chances in 1997 and 1998, didn't buy it.  Had my chance in 2000 after meeting with them on an interoperability test for MPEG-4.  Didn't buy any either.  Then, I just missed that AAPL rocket completely.  These days, I am just admiring how great they have become while the startup I joined on multimedia services flopped.

 

As for holding a dog with fleas, well, I didn't do too bad the first time riding on the same wagon with Buffett back in 2002.  This time, I am being protected by their notes which pay me a nice juicy return.  So, may be this dog with fleas can be the show dog at Westminster one day.  ;D ;D  I think I understand the management of (3) a little better now.  I just hope they get busy with winning more contracts.  Jeff Storey is quite a good operational manager for (3).  He turned the ship around for WilTel before LUK sold it to (3).

[Parsad]

In regards to ValueCarl and Brkerguy, I can attest that they are diehard "3" shareholders.  I know ValueCarl, and I promise you that he has no intention of moving the stock, as much as he would love for it to shoot to the moon.  ValueCarl is not an easy pill for some to swallow, but he knows "3" inside out.  I think the executives at LVLT would attest to that!  ;D  That's why I've let them run on the thread. 

 

What I will do is move this thread to the "Investment Ideas" board, rather than "General Discussion."  Boardmembers would do best to ignore long discussions they may not be interested in, but at the same time, I cannot stop individuals from discussing a company that they are very fond of...unless there is something offensive, at which time I will remove the post or individual.  Cheers!