Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Tangled Web Of Fiber Optics Lines & Gates

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the what-will-happen dept.

sdirector writes "Monday, super investor Warren Buffett jolted the nearly prostrate telecom industry by leading an investment of $500 million in Level 3 Communications ... Buffett's investment could set in motion a complex web of relationships and -- if you play it all out in just the right way -- put Bill Gates in charge of every fiber-optic line in the USA." The actual article itself is pretty interesting reading. Update: 07/12 08AM GMT by C :The link was broken, it has now been fixed. Sorry about that.

220 comments

  1. FP Shoutz to Bunter by insomniac · · Score: -1

    Housed up @ Kaufmann.. This one's for you, brotha .

    --
    -- insomniac --
    1. Re:FP Shoutz to Bunter by confucio-licious · · Score: -1

      I just farted.

      --

      "someone should make a hot air balloon that is shaped like a giant vagina". --Bill Clinton
  2. joke 1 by on+by · · Score: -1

    How do you make a 4 year old cry twice?

    Wipe your bloody dick on her teddy bear..

  3. The Tangled Web Of Fiber Optics Lines & Goatse by anonymous+cowfart · · Score: -1

    See here

    --

    So I'm a pervert. Welcome to the Internet.
  4. Ha! Great. by electricmonk · · Score: -1, Troll

    Now the whole internet can get BSODed when the routers running the network crash.

    --
    Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
  5. Nice link. by Genghis+Troll · · Score: -1

    See subject.

  6. link this Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    what a link

  7. Bad URL by AmInParis · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Edit the article. The URL is bad and points to Slashdot.

  8. Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by corebreech · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Story I submitted that got rejected follows. That slashdot refuses to carry this story tells me that the people who run it have sold their souls. My karma here is worthless.

    The New York Times tells us (after we register for free) that Gnutella developer Gene Kan has committed suicide. Let's see, he was young (25) and just over a year ago saw the company he started bought by Sun Microsystems. It would be wrong to jump to conclusions here. It would also be wrong to not start asking questions. Update: 07/11 23:45 GMT by corebreech: Missed this before, but news of his death was withheld until after the body was cremated.

    Additional links:

    CNN story
    San Jose Mercury News stories: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
    Kan's web log
    JXTA
    Free Republic discussion on Gene Kan
    Google search

    --
    Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    1. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous+Pancake · · Score: -1

      slashdot is a piece of shit for not posting that

      --

      The Slashdot Effect: A new for

    2. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Submitted yahoo version of same story. I wonder how many submissions of this there were? It's certainly relevant to slashdot...

    3. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a number of misspellings in the web-log you link. Where can I send the grammerical corrections?

    4. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by chabotc · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I think you would've had a lot more success with posting this story without the obvious tie ins to conspiracy theories. It is sad enough that it happened, but why tie in the anouncement with conspiracies instead of condolences. (I would say leave the conspiracy to the follow ups / replies if you realy need to get them out of your system)

      My condolences to his family and friends and all those who he touched in his life, and it's always a sad event when one of us decides he doesnt want to live on anymore.

    5. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worthless? I've heard good, excellent and terrible so far...

    6. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by anonymous+cowfart · · Score: -1

      How long will it take for this thread to be bitchslapped?

      --

      So I'm a pervert. Welcome to the Internet.
    7. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by corebreech · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What tie ins to conspiracy theories? You mean the update? That wasn't part of my original story submission.

      Gene Kan was a guy who was developing the most feared technology in America. The RIAA, MIAA, Microsoft... all these guys absolutely loath him. And then he supposedly kills himself, and we only get to find out about this a week after?

      And only after the body is cremated? Think about that for a moment.

      The story has been submitted to /. a zillion times by now I'm sure, and no doubt at least one was expressed in less diabolical tones. Why wasn't that submission posted?

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    8. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by dimator · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Think about that for a moment.

      Thought about it. For two moments. Nothing out of the ordinary (aside from the unfortunate suicide). I don't think it would be an amazing happenstance for his family to ask that nothing be revealed until after he was cremated.

      Besides, the cat is long since out of the bag. He already created the technology. What would anyone have to gain by killing him (if that is even what you are implying)? To send a message to other rogue developers? Is corporate America at that point yet? I doubt it, especially when buying laws is so much easier to do.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    9. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by ejungle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I've thought about it.

      Unfortunately, it makes little sense. The p2p cat is already out of the bag. The Copyright/IP has little to gain from his demise. These companies exist to make money. Revenge is not their business.

      Agreed, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kan's passing are strange, but not inplausible. It'll take considerably more to start me laying such heavy accusations against anyone.

      I do not believe now to be the time nor place for blame. I consider it to be the time for lamenting the loss of a good person. One who made significant inroads in technological advance, and political awareness.

      --
      Remember: umount it before you fsck it.
    10. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by corebreech · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What were the details of his agreement with Sun?

      Yes, we know it was a stock swap, but was there language that allowed Kan to pursue the technology independently if Sun didn't follow through with Gene's original vision?

      If you look at JXTA it seems Sun is selling it as server-enabled peer-to-peer. I take that to mean that the P2P stuff only happens after the server makes the necessary introductions. It seems to me that Sun is thinking they can market this technology not as a way of returning power to individual users as was Gene's ideal but rather as a way of saving bandwidth costs for businesses.

      And yeah, to those who say that Sun is a corporation that is about making money so why should they care about a free Internet, I say this: first, Gene may have been naive enough to believe they'd do the right thing (has was only 25) and second, can you honestly say with a straight face that Sun has the first clue about what they're doing business-wise? With AMD 64-bit systems on the horizon running Linux tell me exactly why we're all going to be buying Sun systems in the future?

      If Gene had rights to pursue JXTA development outside the scope of Sun's server-enabled P2P model, then he's a threat.

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    11. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by debiangruven · · Score: 1

      Yes it is sad that there was a life lost here, but to go as far as to say "Gene Kan was a guy who was developing the most feared technology in America. The RIAA, MIAA, Microsoft... all these guys absolutely loath him. And then he supposedly kills himself, and we only get to find out about this a week after?

      And only after the body is cremated? Think about that for a moment."

      I mean come on, you really need to pull your head out of your ass. Have you thought for a moment that he had a family that wanted some privacy? The fact of the matter is, this is a guy who felt that he had no more to live for, and just took the easy way out. No conspiracies or any of that other crap. He was a smart person who turned out to be a big pussy!

      --
      Stay negative.
    12. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by corebreech · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The p2p cat is already out of the bag.

      Is it?

      JXTA has amongst its many features giving developers the opportunity to deal with firewall issues, things like Network Address Translation, that usually spell the end for more homegrown P2P efforts.

      The way I see it, it was a P2P toolkit, that would let any idiot, even me, construct their own P2P application as easily as most any other Java application and freely distribute it and enjoy the ability to work despite firewalls and NAT and whatever other issues JXTA is able to tame.

      Something like this released into the wild poses a much more difficult scenario than, say, applications that aren't designed to be extended or piggybacked in any way, doesn't it?

      And, isn't time an issue here? Once a technology becomes widely used, it is much more difficult to censor than when in infancy, no?

      Does anybody here really believe that the bicycle, if introduced today, would stand a chance against overzealous legislators once the first child experienced a serious accident?

      Killing the true P2P capabilities inherent in JXTA now, before they became widely available, could easily be seen as being key to any number of players on global-economic stage.

      And in any case, even if I am wearing the tin-foil hat, you should all become better acquainted with the facts necessary to prove that. Right now we know squat. That is simply unacceptible.

      I want to know the details of Gene's contract with Sun.

      I want to know why it is we didn't learn of his death until a week after the fact.

      I want to know what he was cremated before the public did get to know of his death.

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    13. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. is sold goods. The status quo is the only thing that matters. Most of the stories are advertisements.

    14. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who mods the parent or this post down doesn't believe in free speach and is just as bad as the riaa if not worse.

    15. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by corebreech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's interesting watching your post get modded.

      I just have two observations.

      First, even though slashdot sucks, a lot of the people who post on it are truly righteous. I was very pleased to see that many people actually care about what happened to Gene Kan, and totally stunned to see the parent post get modded up to Score: 5 at one point.

      Second, the administration of slashdot is totally corrupt. I watched as my three secondary posts got modded down within less than a minute. Given the traffic this topic is receiving at this hour, that is just bullshit. It's clear to me that some monkey at OSDN has unlimited mod power and that they just routinely run through the posts doing what they please.

      If I want PDA ads, I'll go to ZDNet. If I want Star War spoilers, I'll go to starwars. And if I want to slum with overbooked whores who sold their collective ass for the chance to lick out any and every used condom thrown their way, I'll come to slashdot.

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    16. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by corebreech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ooops, typo.

      That should read:

      I'll come on slashdot.

      Hehe, fuck you Malda. When somebody blows your brains out with a gun I hope I'm there to put down everybody who gives a shit.

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    17. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by ScRipT+KiDDiE+L33T!! · · Score: -1

      Explain to me, how the fuck is he a pioneer?

      What he writes a program that people can download illegal stuff, and hes a pioneer who's revered?

      Pafuckingthetic.

    18. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by SerpentMage · · Score: 2

      I would not exactly say pussy. But if you look at the commentary he wrote in ZDNet "The last chapter" he was massively depressed.

      I think he is part of a generation that now has to come to grips with a word called "Recession". This guy was 25. He developed tech, became king of the world. Then the bubble burst and folks like him were jettisoned. As they say easy come easy go. Of course since we are talking about human emotions this has the result that it becomes difficult to cope with.

      Unless of course you are a few years older and have lived through a recession already...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    19. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by ScRipT+KiDDiE+L33T!! · · Score: -1

      I call troll.

      Or fucking idiot. One of the 2.

    20. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clear to me that some monkey at OSDN has unlimited mod power....

      It's no big secret.

      Second, the administration of slashdot is totally corrupt.

      How exactly would this indicate corruption? No one ever said that moderation was fair or that you have freedom of speech here. You have freedom of speech because you can go start your own website. People who bitch about freedom of speech on Slashdot are always just grousing because they aren't capable of creating their own audience, so they want to hold the Slashdot audience captive. If your opinions are so insightful and valuable than would you need to force /.ers to read them?

      If I want PDA ads, I'll go to ZDNet [zdnet.com]. If I want Star War spoilers, I'll go to starwars [starwars.com].

      Good. Don't let the door hit you on the ass.

    21. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know why those damned giants turn into windmills every time I fight them.

    22. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by corebreech · · Score: 2

      How would you know they're not giants?

      Ever fought one?

      --
      Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
    23. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No one ever said that moderation was fair or that you have freedom of speech here.

      Of course they did. Slashdot is forever banging on about censorship, and the management make regular claims to be in favour of free speech. So what exactly is your objection to having it pointed out that these claims are lies ?

    24. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they did.

      Where?

      Slashdot is forever banging on about censorship, and the management make regular claims to be in favour of free speech.

      Free speech does not include the right to hold people captive so you can speak AT them. Your audience has rights too. The only ones who haven't seen your post are the people using moderation to sort the messages. They are opting-in to get rid of messages that are off topic, trolls, or flamebait. In other words, they are opting in to get rid of you, as an excercise of their rights. You are still free here to say whatever you want. You just think others should be FORCED to listen; you are against freedom for them. You think you deserve a captive audience.

      Even if you weren't free to post your comments here, it still wouldn't be censorship. This is not a street corner, you don't have any more right to erect a soapbox here then you would in a stranger's house. That isn't censorship.

      Make your own website. Claiming some right over someone else's website is censorship. Or at least the words of a wanna-be censor.

      So I say again make your own website. That is your right to free speech in action. And if no one listens? Well then you'll know why so many people opted-in to not to have to listen to you on /. Because they aren't interested in what you have to say.

    25. Re:Peer-to-peer pioneer kills self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because his parents didn't want 10,000 conspiracy theorist assholes clamouring to see the body to proove that he's really dead and it was really a suicide.

  9. 4th or 5th post by Anonymous+Pancake · · Score: -1

    slashdot sucks

    jamie can't code

    the new karma system sucks

    page widening is back, because slashdot doesn't support ie

    all the editors are fags

    --

    The Slashdot Effect: A new for

  10. joke 2 by on+by · · Score: -1

    Three midgets were sitting on a couch one day. One had the smallest hands in the world, one with the smallest feet in the world, and one with the smallest dick in the world.

    They all started talking and wanted to prove their characteristics. So they decided to travel to the Guinness World Records Building. They all sat in the lobby and the first midget goes in. Five minutes later he comes out and says, "It's official! I have the smallest hands in the world!"

    The second one goes into the office. He comes out five minutes later and in pure excitement he shouts, "It's official, I have the smallest feet in the world!"

    So then the third one goes into the office. Five minutes go by, and even ten minutes goes by. When fifteen minutes has passed, the third midget comes storming out and says, "Who in the hell is Rob Malda!?!?!"

  11. Link is wrong by Chuckaluphagus · · Score: -1, Redundant

    The link is in error. Could the author please post the correct one?

  12. Fixed link by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the fixed link. The submitter didn't code the HTML correctly.

    1. Re:Fixed link by blastedtokyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does anyone read the article? This is the wrong column. this link actually works.

    2. Re:Fixed link by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Ken Maney's article is available at several different URLs:

      In the long run your URL will be stable as the original article and my corrected link use a URL that changes whenever Kevin writes a new article.

      However, it looks like Kevin writes an article a week and with /.'s short attention span, the current article link should be fine.

    3. Re:Fixed link by jonquser · · Score: 1

      Here's the Inside story from Fortune: http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol .jhtml&doc_id=208645

  13. The link... by c0wh · · Score: -1, Redundant
    Here's the link to the article.

    Huzzah for proofreading!

  14. url fix by paulm · · Score: -1, Redundant

    url is supposed to be url

  15. First Pure Good Post by Bitter+Old+Man · · Score: -1

    Death to all Lunix fags and GNU knobbers.

  16. joke 3 by on+by · · Score: -1

    Lady goes to see her doctor

    Lady: Doc, you are giving me the wrong hormone prescription.

    Doctor: No way, it is the right dosage.

    Lady: But Doc, I have hair growing out of my chest.

    Doctor: I have been doing this for 20 years, you are getting the right dosage. But let me ask you, how far down is the hair?

    Lady: It's all the way down to my dick

  17. My favorite things by poopbot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Credits: on by

    crapfloods and trolling and raping small kittens
    nice wider pages and wanking with mittens
    turd report packages tied up with strings
    these are a few of my favorite things

    grits covered portman and ASCII art doodles
    ACs and CLITers and Katz sex with poodles
    wild trolls that fly with plus five mod scoring
    these are a few of my favorite things

    when the ban hits, when I can't post, when I'm feeling sad
    i simply remember my favorite things
    then i don't feel so bad

    Rob Malda chugs penis in fan fiction slashes
    taco snot over my nose and eyelashes
    BSD dying and that goatse ring
    these are a few of my favorite things

    grits covered portman and ASCII art doodles
    ACs and CLITers and Katz sex with poodles
    wild trolls that fly with plus five mod scoring
    these are a few of my favorite things

    when the ban hits, when I can't post when, I'm feeling sad
    i simply remember my favorite things
    then i don't feel so bad

    - poopbot: lovely snot! wonderful snot!

    1. Re:My favorite things by poopbot by on+by · · Score: -1

      thanks! i feel so spechul now that i'm going to hop on the short bus!

    2. Re:My favorite things by poopbot by Not+Quite+Jake · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ahhhh poopbot...It's stuff like this that makes me question the TRUE worth of humanity...and dream of the possibilities with a weapon like this.

    3. Re:My favorite things by poopbot by on+by · · Score: -1

      YHBT
      FOAD
      HAND
      Plzfixthxbye

  18. The good link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here
    Please mod me down if an editor corrects it.

  19. Next Buffett will want Information-Technology.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On a related note, how much do you think information-technology.com's worth?

  20. joke 4 by on+by · · Score: -1

    Why can't Stevie Wonder read?

    Because he's black.

  21. Hahaha Hemos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure you included a URL?
    Didja test them for typos?

    Sorry, that was too tempting...

  22. Joke...errr..5 i think, i've lost count by on+by · · Score: -1

    Q: What is the worst thing about farking a 5 year old?
    A: Getting the blood off of your clown shoes.

  23. 6 - another baby one for you know who by on+by · · Score: -1

    whats the difference between a truckload of bricks and a truckload of babies?

    bricks dont scream when you shovel them with a pitchfork.

  24. Interesting... by JanusFury · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I wonder how a major screwup in the HTML like that got through. Maybe it's because the EDITORS DON'T READ THE STORIES BEFORE PUTTING THEM ON THE FRONT PAGE? Nah, couldn't be. Probably just a supernatural screw up - act of God/CmdrTaco sort of thing. :)

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
  25. 7 seven, number 7 by on+by · · Score: -1

    Q:What's the best part about having sex with 8 year olds?

    A: When the pictures come back your dick looks huge!

  26. Some strange possibilities... by JanusFury · · Score: 1

    After reading that article, I must say there's some pretty strange possibilities. It seems silly to think of Bill Gates owning the entire telecom industry, but with the way things are now, the author's little prediction of the future may very well come true. And we'd all be in deep shit then.

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
  27. 8? do i hear 8? by on+by · · Score: -1

    Q: What's the best thing about fucking a 9 year old girl?
    A: Flip her over, you can pretend she's a 9 year old boy.

  28. hey by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  29. nien! 9! nine! by on+by · · Score: -1

    A woman is giving birth when she hears a SNAP. She frantically asks the doctor "What was that?" The doctor says that the baby broke its arm but that they can fix it when it comes out. The woman, reassured, starts to push again. SNAP. "Oh, don't worry. The baby broke it's leg, but we can fix it when it's out." When the baby finally comes out, the doctor dropkicks it in the head, throws it against the wall and stomps on the body. The woman screams "What are you doing? That's my baby!" The doctor replies "April fools! The baby was already dead!"

  30. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

    1. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by on+by · · Score: -1

      That, kind sir, makes me very hungry...

    2. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by on+by · · Score: -1

      welcome to my foes list, please be more creative in future. trying to reply to every post is very dull.

    3. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by on+by · · Score: -1

      Hey, FOAD!

    4. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by on+by · · Score: -1

      oh btw, you'll hit the max posts per day limit soon - see ya!

    5. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, there's one nad, is the other one still in there? Post pix of his girlfriend too! I like it when girls play rough... mmmm.

    6. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by on+by · · Score: -1

      OH TEH NOS!@!@ did you run out of posts? feeling banned? shame! You have such a good nick, don't waste it!

    7. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by yatest5 · · Score: 1

      Can someone tell me what this new troll piccy is? I'm curious, but not THAT curious :).

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    8. Re:--- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made me click on that right before I was going to bed.

      Cheers, dude.

      It's a picture of the crown jewels with one of the pearls hanging loose.

  31. Re:Next Buffett will want Information-Technology.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's trying to get $65k+ and he's worried about the $15 transfer fee?

  32. 10! the final one! by on+by · · Score: -1

    What's black and blue and hates sex?

    The ten year old locked in my basement.

  33. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  34. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  35. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  36. uh, whatever... by bigNuns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i love the part about just dismissing at&t at all... yeah ok... whatever... this is fantasy...

    --
    .................... ...mmm farm fresh...
    1. Re:uh, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh... folks. USATODAY's web server was cracked last night. This is bogus.

  37. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  38. I don't think so. by msaavedra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author is really reaching here. Such a deal would never make it past the regulators without selling off large portions of the network. Of course, GWB could always decide that such regulations are un-American, and tell his people to look the other way, but that is not likely considering the lack of trust that most US citizens have for corporations these days.

    Additionally, Warren Buffett never buys into a company with plans to turn around and sell it; he's almost always in for the long haul. Still, Buffett has always stayed away from tech stocks in the past, so maybe he's turning over a new leaf.

    --
    "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
    --Henry David Thoreau
    1. Re:I don't think so. by vidarh · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'm fully with you about the regulators. As for Buffet, I think the reason he's going for telecom now is that they pose an exceptional opportunity:

      The market has fallen extremely far to start with, then the KPNQwest bankrupcy in Europe, the Worldcom scandal and the Qwest investigations, makes telecom take a nosedive. There are bound to be lots of opportunities now.

      If Level3 is healthy (I wouldn't know, haven't looked at their numbers), and there's no scandals lurking, they should be in a very good position to steal worried customers from the others, and even if they don't their shareprice should still have a reasonable growth potential when the market rebounds.

      I guess he might have seen it as a larger than usual opportunity. But before you run of to buy level 3 stock, remember that Buffet knows people - he may have deals in place that gets him way more potential from Level 3 than the average investor will (and btw. I'm referring to legal possibilities here - it gets so much easier to make money when you're already rich and people want to cut deals with you)

    2. Re:I don't think so. by RawCode · · Score: 2, Informative

      I aggree. In the Level 3 press release, Buffett said "Liquid resources and strong financial backing are scarce and valuable assets in today's telecommunications world. Level 3 has both".
      Also note that the ACTUAL amount put in from Buffett is only 100 million with the other 400 million from 2 other investors.

    3. Re:I don't think so. by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Short answer is that Level 3 is actually pretty damn solvent, as telcos go, certainly better off than anyone but the RBOCs and some of the cable companies. Through some combination of tremendous foresight and blind luck, they raised a boatload of debt/equity/converts/you name it at the absolute peak of the market. Result? They have cash, enough to buy some of their bonds back at 30-40 cents on the dollar. Is Level 3 debt a good place to put your grandmother's retirement fund? Nope. Is it pretty attractive on the risk/reward scale? I think so.

    4. Re:I don't think so. by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

      As much as Level 3 ain't as bad as other Telco's - it ain't a RBOC, and this market that ain't good. The only way L3 can meet the revenue covenents of their loans is by acquiring more companies - without acquiring new revenue streams, they're going to default on their loans, because the sure as hell can't raise revue from their fiber right now. This is why recently they've beeen acquiring non-telco companies - give them a quick source of revenue.

      As for the reason for the bailout - the best explanation I've heard was it's a "capitalist" bailout. I.E Alan G., Paully O, a the W got on the horn and begged Warren. Historically, this scenario ain't that far fetched - particularly in light of the relatively small amount of money(relative to his portfolio) that Warren invested.

    5. Re:I don't think so. by Doomdark · · Score: 2
      Short answer is that Level 3 is actually pretty damn solvent, as telcos go, certainly better off than anyone

      Perhaps better than most of its peers (of which many/most are bankrupt...), but hardly anything spectacular compared to companies in other sectors. Have a look at its financials and see how well it's doing.

      Basically they are still bleeding badly; net income from continuing operations is still negative, debt load is high (6 billions), they do have some cash (about 1 billion) but with negative cash flow of almost 200 millions per quarter it's only bit over 1 year they can survive without boost in earnings. They are doing better, and perhaps they can turn the ship in time... hard to say, my crystal ball won't show the answer.

      And companies with negative total stockholder equity (like Level 3) are scary, no matter what.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  39. Learning from Net-Nexus Seoul by mparaz · · Score: 1

    From the Net-Nexus Seoul article - will Bill G focus on pushing content over the pipes, requiring DRM, or will it be interactive person to person applications?

    1. Re:Learning from Net-Nexus Seoul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will Bill G focus on pushing content over the pipes

      I was going to make a dry suggestion about where Bill could shove those optical fibers but I guess the author had already thought of that.

    2. Re:Learning from Net-Nexus Seoul by hdparm · · Score: 1
      Well, knowing what he's been focusing on so far, it would be something like pushing bugs/fud/bloatware/security holes over the pipes, requiring big $$$ + passport info. That process is, however, interactive - Bill is providing, we are paying for provided, so it's not a real dillema.

      On the serious note, this whole story sounds more like screenplay than something that can happen in actual life. There's just too much attention focused on Bill and MS for buyout of these proportions to be allowed.

  40. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  41. MOD PARENT UP by anonymous+cowfart · · Score: -1

    +1, informative

    --

    So I'm a pervert. Welcome to the Internet.
  42. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  43. It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taco has been "gotten to." He wouldn't dare post the story now, lest he have an "accident."

  44. Damn, it sounds plausible, too. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which is kind of scary. Especially as mr Gates has the money to make that bid mentioned in the last paragraph, and apparently the goodwill-between-friends to make the offer stick. And of course he's shown that he's the kind of man who likes non-competetive markets (read: monopolies). And even more bothersome is that KPNQwest also has lotsa cable running through Europe...and I thought I was safe here :( What's funny though is the bit about mr Gates telling the three friends all about this internet thing...yup, the same mr Gates who ignored the browser market because he saw no future in that internet thingy... Now if only he'd had the same attitude about OS', back in the day...

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    1. Re:Damn, it sounds plausible, too. by albanac · · Score: 1
      And even more bothersome is that KPNQwest also has lotsa cable running through Europe...

      Point 1: Had. Past tense. Read the news.

      Point 2: You seem to be confusing Qwest (the company mentioned in the article) with KPNQwest (the company which operated an European long-haul fibre network. Qwest is a western-seaboard long-haul fibre company. KPN is the national Telco for Holland. KPNQwest was an independent company which was *funded* by a KPN/Qwest joint venture to build fibre in Europe. It built lots of fibre and over-spent. In attempting to get sorted out it bought (with what? god knows) several profitable companies, including EUnet and Ebone (one of the best trans-European IP networks). Within 2 months it went bankrupt and they turned out the lights last week.

      HTH. HAND.

      ~cHris
    2. Re:Damn, it sounds plausible, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was actually an american plot to slow down the development of Europe's high-speed comms infrastructure.

    3. Re:Damn, it sounds plausible, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says Bill G missed out on the Internet? I think you /.'ers just like to believe that so that the 90% market penetration that IE has is somehow justified/villified. Gates was wrong in thinking that the browser doesn't matter, but the "browser" and the "internet" are two different things. Microsoft was involved in the internet way before Windows 95 (remember WfW?? and it's poorly written TCP/IP stack?). Let's not be stupid now, people. /.'ers really are closed minded fools professing an open source life.

  45. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  46. do i hear 11? by on+by · · Score: -1

    What's the worst part of having sex with a vegetable?

    Getting them back in the wheelchair.

    1. Re:do i hear 11? by ScRipT+KiDDiE+L33T!! · · Score: -1

      H4 H4 W|-|4T 4 F|_||\||\|Y J0|<3!!!

      Propz to yuo my freind.

  47. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  48. #12 (was Re:MOD PARENT UP) by on+by · · Score: -1

    What does 90 year old pussy taste like?

    Depends.

  49. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  50. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  51. off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could have put it in your journal and a link in your sig, and avoided Karma loss and being banned from moderation for life. All respondents to this will be blacklisted as well as those who moderated it up. I just hope I'm not included for trying to give you this heads up, even though I'm doing it AC. Prepare for oblivion.

    1. Re:off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it wouldn't surprise me, slashdot editors love to clamp down on free speach!

    2. Re:off-topic by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      Oh no, not banned from moderation for life!!!

      He must be REALLY scared of that one.

    3. Re:off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who told you speach[sic] on /. was free? You can start your own website: that is free speech. This space is owned and regulated as those in charge see fit: that is a form of free speech too. If they weren't allowed to run their own website as they see fit, that would be censorship.

  52. Gates to buy internet by Hellkitten · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Story: a few people own a lot of fiber. Gates could offer them money for this fiber and then he owns it.

    Ok the article (thanks to earlier posters for the correct url, do they ever check their html?) is interesting enough. But to say that buffet investing in telecoms means he will sell it to gates at the first opportunity is a bit of a long shot

    --
    - We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
  53. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  54. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  55. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  56. SPAM by thales · · Score: 2
    Maybe they don't have any reason to post it now, since it's already been covered by your series of offtopic posts attached to other stories.

    If you don't like which stories /. covers, then start your own site.

    --
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    1. Re:SPAM by AftanGustur · · Score: 2
      If you don't like which stories /. covers, then start your own site.

      Interesting, and if I don't like my telephone company I should start my own ?? And if I don't like Microsoft I should start my own software company ?? And if I ......

      No need to activate your brain ... this is /.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    2. Re:SPAM by thales · · Score: 2
      " Interesting, and if I don't like my telephone company I should start my own ??"
      Yes, or switch providers
      "And if I don't like Microsoft I should start my own software company ??"
      Yes, or buy from another software company

      Now for my question, what makes you think you have the right to impose your will on Slashdot, or your Teleco, or Microsoft?

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    3. Re:SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's imposing their will?

      We're just saying they suck, that's all.

      Slashdot sucks. Get it?

    4. Re:SPAM by thales · · Score: 2
      An AC wrote:
      "Slashdot sucks. Get it?"

      If it sux so bad why are you reading it rather than a site that dosen't suck, or perhaps starting a site that dosen't suck?

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    5. Re:SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I've invested 3 or 4 years of my life into building my account on Slashdot. It used to be a good site and now it sucks so I feel all that time was wasted.

    6. Re:SPAM by AftanGustur · · Score: 2

      Now for my question, what makes you think you have the right to impose your will on Slashdot, or your Teleco, or Microsoft?

      WHAT ?? You got it all backwards mister. I have all the rights in this world that haven't been taken away from me yet, as do you .. And I will use them as I see fit .

      Haven't you joined your fightclub yet ?

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    7. Re:SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because I've invested 3 or 4 years of my life into building my account on Slashdot . . . and now it sucks so I feel all that time was wasted.

      That's seriously pathetic.

  57. What would happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Obviously, the slashdot crowd is anti-gates. We all imagine Gates reaching into our pocketbooks with Montgomery-Burns-like limp-wristed glee. It would cost the end user a lot of money - that's what monopolies are about.

    I gotta figure that close a marriage of "the network IS the computer" would produce some interesting output, however. Yeah, yeah, so online free music would go away. For this discussion nobody cares about online content delivery. It's old news everybody talks about.

    What kind of wacky new tech would something like this spawn? In Gates' mind is echoing the quote from the "Net-Nexus Seoul" article: "(We) wanted to focus on interaction. And what is more interactive than games? We made this market. We made new sectors. American media companies were just using online capacity to distribute offline media."

    Gotta wonder what we'll see. Something has gotta make us give gates that nickle and get the 666 tattooed on our arms...

    Adam

  58. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  59. Note on slashdot posts by roalt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Note to all Readers: As of now all your postings are moderated by Bill Gates, owner of the internet in the US.

    1. Re:Note on slashdot posts by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      Just replace "Bill Gates" with "L.Bob Rife" and the "Internet" with the "Metaverse" and you will see that the Snow Crash prophesies have come true.

  60. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  61. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  62. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  63. Poo! by The+Porn+Count · · Score: -1

    My karma is "Terrible"!!! WTF?

    --

    THE PORN COUNT: Bringing Porn to Slashdot, Daily.

  64. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  65. Why? by thales · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If Billy Borg wanted to buy into the Telecoms, WHY would he need Buffett to come in and buy them first? Why didn't he just buy the stock earlier this week?

    This sounds more likely. Buffett decided the stock was undervalued after the beating it's taken lately and a good longterm investment. A Hack writter noticed Buffett's investment and wanted to grab page hits for the online version of the story, so he invented some half ass conspircy to attract the paranoid.

    --
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    1. Re:Why? by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      WHY would he need Buffett to come in and buy them first? Why didn't he just buy the stock earlier this week?

      It's not that simple. (I work for an investment firm but I AM NOT SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF, SO DON'T LET THEM SUE ME, BOSS.) It seems I could walk into the market and buy all the stock that's for sale by a few companies. But it's not that simple. Large trades are automatically tracked by the market (e.g. NYSE has a department with lots of computers checking what's up). Huge purchases can be instantly blocked pending an investigation. Plus remember that only stocks which are being offered can be bought. If 51% of a company's investors aren't selling their stock, Bill could only buy 49%.

      Plus on top of all of that, if the board is against a majority purchase of stock (51% or more) it's called a hostile takeover. It's legal, but angers investors and employees, plus the board might be able to sue to buy stock back. But if Bill's in with a huge investor, he'll face no arguments from inside the company. He can also then slowly move in, rather than buy everything at once, preventing regulation flags from being raised by the SEC.

      So basically it's a lot more complicated than you might think. Although I agree that this probably isn't a conspiracy. Buffett saw a good deal and took it. Anything now that happens with Bill probably was not planned.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    2. Re:Why? by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

      Warren Buffett dropping $500 Million in pocket change isn't a big negative deal. Bill Gates doing the same thing would definitely get everyone going. Seeing the problems that Microsoft has gotten itself into, Bill needs Warren to provide a smokescreen. Now, if Bill invests $200 million in Level 3, WorldCom/MCI or anyone else with languishing excess bandwidth, it's going to slip under most people's radar screens.

    3. Re:Why? by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      Why wouldn't it happen this way?

      Buffett and Gates are very good friends, they dine together and Warren speaks highly of Melinda... ...he also considers Gates a genius.

      --
      Get your Unix fortune now!
    4. Re:Why? by Animats · · Score: 2
      Buying up companies is done all the time. In the US, when you reach 14% ownership, you have to file a statement with the SEC, but that's no big deal.

      Usually, not that much of a company's stock is being actively traded. Often, you have to negotiate individually with some big buy-and-hold investors. But Worldcom stock is so low, and has been so heavily traded recently, that somebody with a few hundred million probably could buy it up.

      But it will be much cheaper to buy up the assets after the bankruptcy. Then, you're not stuck with the old loans.

      Buying up telecoms at bargain-basement prices is consistent with Buffett's strategy. He buys up companies that generate earnings over a long period of time, when he can do so at a price that makes those earnings affordable.

    5. Re:Why? by thales · · Score: 2
      If Billy Borg was looking for a stooge to buy the stock for him, don't you think he would find one with a lower profile than Buffett?

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    6. Re:Why? by jcgresham · · Score: 0

      Buffett's investment was only 100 mil. That is a bar tab for this guy!!!

      "Longleaf will buy $300 million of the debt, while Berkshire and Legg Mason will buy $100 million each."
      http://www.azcentral.com/news/reuters/stor ies/NET- TECH-LEVEL3-DEBT-DC.shtml

    7. Re:Why? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      As of about 1:50pm EST on July 12, their market cap was hovering around $400M. I'm sure that just their long-distance service would sell for more in a post-bankruptcy auction, so an outright purchase right now by a relatively wealthy investor, say, someone with a few billion dollars, could conceivably take the company private, using existing revenues and perhaps a moderate cash infusion to pay off the debts. The owner could then spin off or sell some aspects of the existing business (such as MCI) to raise some additional capital to fix procedural issues that prevent profitability (I'm sure there's a lot of streamlining that could be done), and one of the biggest turnarounds ever could be seen.

      Obviously, there are some technical difficulties, as such an offer would require a great quantity of pure cash to work out, or a lot of stock trades to raise the cash, and would probably attract more media attention than most people would like to consider, but it is possible. It would also be a tremendously fun gamble to watch play out.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Why? by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      Why does he need to... you don't think Warren Buffett more using Billy Borg to do something really "cool" with his investment.

      They both stand to make money. Warren lends some control and his initial investment will skyrocket. It's sad, but it likely will happen. Imagine signing a contract with you next home builder which gets you a T1 or whatever Microsoft has to hold you in their greasy hands...

      --
      Get your Unix fortune now!
    9. Re:Why? by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      If Billy Borg wanted to buy into the Telecoms, WHY would he need Buffett to come in and buy them first?

      Wouldn't he set up a shell corporation? Aren't lots of companies owned by a "holding" company?

      First he would set up Microsoft Holdings to own the stock of another corporation, Microsoft Strangleholdings. Then this company would own all the stock of another corporation Microsoft Chokeholdings which would in turn own Microsoft Balls-holdings, which would finally own all of the stock of every telecom corporation to be followed by every bank, cable tv company, and news outlet.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    10. Re:Why? by banking_intern · · Score: 1

      The problem with a "hostile" takeover isn't quite so much being sued by the board, but the board taking action to "defend" the company. Many times that involves issuing lots of new stock (called the posion pill) or taking action which might degrade the value fo the stock. Also, they can start to use the companies moeny to buy back shares to push the price up and make the acquirer pay a LOT more to get controll.
      Lawsuits come in once someone HAS controll and they take actions with the company that harm the other shareholders value.
      I've read securites law in a nutshell, have you?

    11. Re:Why? by banking_intern · · Score: 1

      Once you reach the ownership threashold, you have to file with the sec. HOWEVER, you can ask for them (the sec) not to disclose that filing to the public for a while. Buffet has been using that "loophole" a lot harder than anyone else anywhere. So, dear old warren can buy a lot of the company and NOT tell anyone about it.

  66. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  67. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  68. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  69. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  70. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  71. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  72. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  73. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  74. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  75. --- CHECK THIS OUT --- by Goatse+Pez+Dispenser · · Score: -1

    Hey, check THIS OUT!!!

  76. Telecommunications Consolidation by panaceaa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The telecommunications industry is definitely ripe for consolidation. There is just too much bandwidth and too much telecom competition for any company to be very profitable. The article predicts that L3, with Warren Buffett's investment, will buy up the assets of WorldCom and Qwest to consolidate their customer bases, reduce costs, and lower competition. Since Gates has a relationship with Buffett, and current investments in L3 and WorldCom assets, he will be in a powerful position in the telecom industry after the mergers go through. But he'll still only own about 5-10% of L3. Then the article goes completely off a limb and states:

    Gates could approach Buffett to buy it all. Gates would own the Internet.

    This is stupid. If Gates (or probably Microsoft) wanted to own telecom, he could just buy it now at lower prices. He has enough money to buy L3, Qwest and WorldCom now. Why would he wait for consolidation to occur, the market to improve, and the price of these companies to probably triple?

    Sure, Gates could own the infrastructure. But if he was still interested in infrastructure, why did he stop investing in MSN? Over the past few years Microsoft has abandoned most of its infrastructure projects and focused once again on software. And the Qwest/L3 investments are years old, back when MS cared about MSN.

    Saying that Gates is trying to buy the telecom industry is just flamebait. There's nothing recent to suggest that he's trying to do that.

    --
    my blog
    1. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by The+Cat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      too much ... competition

      Yeah. Too much competition. Shame.

      Like too much democracy, or too much freedom.

      sigh...

    2. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by panaceaa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's definitely good for consumers to have too much competition. But hey, when have Warren Buffett and Gates cared about consumers. They just want to make money. And you make more money in a heavily competed industry by bringing companies together, taking away redundant assets and services, and (unfortunately) removing customer choice.

      There's a post about 10 above mine about Gates liking monopolies, so he'd probably like to make a telecom monopoly too. It's funny, but it's so true. But the root of it is that you can make more money with less competition. That's business. You just have to be careful not to piss off too many consumers or make a scene while doing it. (Something Microsoft hasn't been good at recently.)

      --
      my blog
    3. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by stu72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      uh... no.

      Too much competition results in prices to low to sustain healthy businesses, which results in rashes of bankruptcy. Less competition results in prices high enough to sustain healthy companies for the long term. No competition results in the highest prices and will sustain a company long after it has ceased to be useful to the world.

      As in all things, balance is key.

      Your metaphor is also flawed because freedom and democracy are not zero sum games. If you have more freedom, you don't need to get it at someone else's expense. But if you pay less money for a product or service, that person that provides that product or service earns less. If you earn more money for a product or service, the customers who buy it must pay more.

      As in all things, balance is key.

      Oh, I forgot, this is /. and whatever the issue, it's always the corporation's fault.

    4. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by Derg · · Score: 2, Funny
      I agree with this and other posts that state that the idea of Gates buying the L3/Qwest/WorldCom conglomorate from Buffet is quite a stretch, but if they have the "friendship" that is so highly touted in the article, it is possible that some really strange squence of events could lead to Gates owning it all, unintentionally.

      Lets examine a senario.

      Gates and Buffet. Chillin like a pair of penguins somewhere, way past toasted, playing various games of chance; for sake of argument lets make it Poker.(not entirely chance, but lets just say it is) Both are out of cash currency on there persons, so they start betting property, a car here, a chunk of stock there. So 'round bout middle of the night, both sh!tfaced beyond compare, each pulls a hand that they think the other cant beat. So Buffet says "I'll bet you my L3/Qwest/WorldCom to your Microsoft". Gates, never backing down from a challenge accepts, and wins with a pair of queens to Buffets hand of sh!t. Lackeys ever vigilent in the shadows shake hands andBAM!, All Bow Down To Gates, Owner Of The Free World.

      or maybe not *shrug*

      --
      I'm a little tea pot.
    5. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by thales · · Score: 2
      Too much competition means little or no profits. Small profits means no investment in new technology. No profits means cutting costs on things like maintance.

      How is an aging poorly maintained infrastructure "good for consumers"?

      What are consumers going to consume if they destroy the producers reason to produce by eliminating profits?

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    6. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You're the consummate corporate whore, aren't you ?

    7. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC correctly too much competition -> little or no profits -> have to cut labour -> machines do the labour -> no one has to work -> reminds me of a book written by a famous communist guy...

    8. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm, not quite right either....

      'Too much' competition does indeed cut profits to the bare minimum which the companies care to get away with, but so long as no company has a drastic advantage over the other and they all realize it, companies will sell below production costs most of the time. True, promotions come about that do this occasionally, but they are typically short lived. A company in a market full of competition *knows* they can't survive if they sell below production cost. They will of course cut production costs and maintenance, etc, but only as far as they can before the quality falls below the point the consumer will take. This results in a market-driven quality/price 'sweet point' after time is given to reach equilibrium.

      The companies that will sell stuff at a loss are companies that are nearly monopolies in order to drive a perceived competitor out of business (or in the case of MS, to try to force its way into another market, the home entertainment market). Only when a company knows it has enough staying power to pull it off do they go beneath production (or if a bigger company is bullying them out of the market, forcing their hand...)

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    9. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by vovin · · Score: 1

      Painfully moronic.
      Who marked troll to 3?

    10. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Two things to remember:

      1. The telecom industry is damn close to a zero marginal cost business (once you've built the network, the cost of sending an incremental bit of traffic is virtually zero)
      2. The telecom industry has huge upfront capital costs for building the network - these need to be financed (i.e. the network needs to be paid for over time)

      Hence, pricing is heavily driven by #2 - you need to charge enough to make your interest payments.

      Problem is, if you have a provider which has gone bankrupt and gone through resturucturing, it will have sharply reduced debt and hence interest payments (assuming, as typical, some sort of debt-for-equity swap was part of the bankruptcy proceedings). Hence, you've got a player in the market which can charge prices damn close to #1, since it really doesn't have to worry about #2. This creates market prices below those at which the other (non-bankrupt) players can run their networks and pay their debt, driving them into bankruptcy as well.

    11. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by 3am · · Score: 2

      It looks like you're agreeing with stu72.

      From the first post:
      As in all things, balance is key.

      From your post:
      This results in a market-driven quality/price 'sweet point' after time is given to reach equilibrium.

      Seems like the same point to me.

      I guess your disagreement is with this part -

      Too much competition results in prices to low to sustain healthy businesses, which results in rashes of bankruptcy.

      But honestly, I don't know why you'd have trouble accepting this. You seem to miss the point that even if a product is priced above the cost of production, nobody has to buy it. There is a finite pool of consumers with finite amounts of money, and even if company x makes a per-time profit on product y, company x can still have a net loss if they do not sell enough of their inventory. In fact, from the perspective of minimizing net loss, selling below production cost might be the optimal strategy. So too much competition can be a bad thing. I think the appropriate economic topics are the income elasticity of demand/elasticity of supply. I know next to nothing about pricing strategies, though. Perhaps one of those CS/Econ double majors can lend a hand...

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    12. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by dmv · · Score: 1

      Or a different scenerio, out of /. style:

      Buffet wins Microsoft. WTF would happen then?

    13. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by bmajik · · Score: 2

      Is it beyond all comprehension and possibility that Gates thinks hes doing the right things ?

      I've got the floorplan to bill gates office. There's no architectual elements that look like a throne, pit of fire, or dungeon room. I don't see anywhere he could sit in solitude contemplating his next evil move.

      People that are worth billions of dollars and don't retire are into life for more than money, and more than evil. There's something else going on.

      Here's a question for contemplation: Without Microsoft, how many of you would be using a PC ?

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    14. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by WNight · · Score: 2

      How many of us would be using a PC? Me for sure. And the Mac was a perfect newbie-friendly computer in '84 when it came out.

      The industry would be doing just fine without MS. We owe them nothing. (Sure, they've done a few things, but they've also harmed the industry by trying to avoid standards bodies, and much/all of what they did would have been done by other companies.)

      If there's any one company to thank for the modern PC world, it's Compaq and their reverse-engineering of an IBM-PC which made the hardware cheap.

    15. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Painfully moronic. Who marked troll to 3?

      Someone with a better understanding of economics than you do.

    16. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has all of those at home away from the pesky microserfs.

    17. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by bmajik · · Score: 2

      Did you own an apple ][ ? Did you have one of the earlier S-100 bus computers ?

      Once upon a time computers were relegated to the realm of hobbyists ONLY.
      Incidentally, who do you think wrote Applesoft basic for the apple ][ ?

      You may not feel that microsoft had anything to do with the popularity and adoption of the PC for yourself, but do you feel the same way about their affect on the masses ? Can you imagine an apple][ that booted directly into a BASIC interpreter in every home in america ?

      Somebody worked really hard on the idea that normal people should be able to use computers. Someone made it a priority to "get a computer into every home".

      Guess who.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    18. Re:Telecommunications Consolidation by WNight · · Score: 2

      Woz wrote one basic interpreter (Integer Basic I think), and ended up buying the MS one because it was easier than writing a new one. But it's not like MS was the only choice or anything.

      Yes, I had an Apple ][+, a //gs, a vic-20, a c-64, an old mac, and a few PCs, in the 80s.

      The apple ][ was where they were trying to make a computer usable by everyone. Apple's office suite was pretty good and sold a ton of computers before they brought the mac out.

      Amiga might have been a player if they'd been marketed better.

      There were many companies trying to make computers usable by the masses, MS didn't do anything that other companies weren't trying to do.

      Where do you get this load of bull about MS? It sounds like it's from Bill's book, and MS marketing material. Apple had a program of supplying computers to schools long before MS did. Apple also pointed people towards organizations that would offer grants/scolarships to buy home computers for people.

      Had MS never existed, there'd be just as many PCs today, without the disturbing monoculture (email viruses that can infect 95% of computers are not fun) and without one company in a position to push crap like Palladium on us.

  77. Difference between the US and Asia is cultural by joneshenry · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That Net-Nexus Seoul article explicitly mentioned cultural differences between the US and Korea. To recast the analysis in a different light, the quest in the US for the past few decades has been for individual space. This is reflected in the American obsession for the automobile and the suburbs. The United States has basically spread out development to sustain the "American dream" of home ownership. In Korea on the other hand the article points out that many people are crowded into small apartments without room to entertain friends. As the Koreans wish to be social they will gladly go out to be with others, and for younger people, they will flock to the equivalent of Internet cafes.

    From the American perspective it does not take an evil conspiracy to explain why providers would prefer the Internet to be used to deliver content not interactivity. If there is a market it is likely considering the American culture that this is the best way to make money by satisfying consumer demand. Americans with money will have relatively big houses and the willingness to spend thousands of dollars on home entertainment systems. In the past decade American consumers have shown they are willing to purchase billions in content in the form of DVDs. In the US at least it is not considered shameful to spend whatever free hours one has on self-emersed isolated personal entertainment, and there is a strong psychological demand for such entertainment.

    The fly in the ointment is simply the classic analysis by Tanenbaum that one should not underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon transporting tapes down the highway. That is, if one can ignore latency of 12 hours, there is no bandwith advantage to the Internet when it comes to delivering content. In the US at least it is very easy for the lone commuter in an automobile to stop by the store on the way home to pick up a DVD. Unless the Federal Government were to launch a program on the scale of the building of the Interstate highway system to close the last mile gap with fiber, something that will not happen, the average US consumer will suffer less latency from just dropping by the local store versus waiting for content to be downloaded. The current cable/DSL piddly bandwidth relative to what DVD quality content demands simply can't cut it.

    1. Re:Difference between the US and Asia is cultural by alizard · · Score: 2
      While I don't expect this to happen, it might not be all that expensive to push fiber to most curbs.

      While what I've been hearing is about municipally-owned power companies building their own fiber optics networks for internal use and suddenly realizing that they had a cash cow they could tap by simply opening public access, I would assume that the commercially owned utilities have done the same thing.

      Give them access to long-term public bond financing for the purpose of getting service from the utility poles to the home/business and a mandate to use it.

      Of course, this would force cable companies and telco DSL either to compete on price and service or go out of business.

      So far, in the places where citiLECs have been built, I haven't heard of any companies going out of business, just discovering that they can provide good, reasonably priced service once the customers realize that they don't have to accept excuses for bad service, they can pick up a phone and get the good stuff.

      What I actually expect to happen is that the emerging centers of new technological growth are going where the cheap bandwidth is. That leaves out Silicon Valley and most of the rest of the US. The broadband apps everyone will discover they need will come. And everyone outside these cheap bandwidth areas will be paying cablemodem / telco retail for them.

      --
      Tech Public Policy stuff
  78. Re:Ha! Great. by angelkey · · Score: -1, Troll

    WOWOWOWO! Another funny man! HAHAHAHAHA! This day is to good to be true! You are a very funny and witty man! At first I didn't get it...'BSOD?, I said...'What could this be?' HAHAHAHAHA! Now I get it! The entire internet runs on Microsoft hardware which is prone to the 'blue screens of death'...HAHAHAHAHAHA! This is quite hilarious to me and I'm sure to the others within the Slashdot community. It's not often I come across such hilarity at 4:30 in the morning! Who needs coffee when we have a knee-slap wake up call from Mr.Funny Pants himself? HAHAHAHA! These 'blue screen of death' jokes just don't get old. I think I should wake up my girlfriend to read your post. HAHAHAHAHAHA! She laughs too! The cleverness of your banter has once again left me in stitches! Can you imagine the ENTIRE internet crashing! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That would be one big BSOD! HAHAHAHAHAHA! I surely hope that your post gets modded to +10 Hilarious Madcap Funniness! I think my favourite tidbit of joy that you provided was the 'routers running the network' part. HAHAHAHAHA! BSOD Router! Bye bye internet! HAHAHAHAHAHA! BSOD! HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks again for hosing all of us down with your clever repertoire of material. 911? Hi, I'd like to report a drive-by joking! HAHAHAHA! Funny as charged officer! Funny as charged!

    --
    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell, 1984
  79. The Internet exists outside America by marche+U · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Gates owns the internet.
    There is a world outside the US.
    --
    Human logic: 1) I can't so you mustn't. 2) I can but you mustn't.
    1. Re:The Internet exists outside America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how come you UK'ers haven't learned to brush your teeth yet?

    2. Re:The Internet exists outside America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a world outside the US.

      Don't listen to him! It's a dark and scary world outside of Fortress America. If you leave and terrorists attack you may possibly be barred from reentry even if you're an American citizen!!! The warm loving embrace of our great democratic republic will be denied to you. I felt this on a recent trip to Mexico. What a scary feeling that you're not within the loving confines of the borders of the United States to protect you. Then you get to customs and feel like a common foreigner that you have to prove your birthright to some shmuck in a glass window. I AM A UNITED STATES CITIZEN FOR GOD'S SAKE! The seas should part and the shores should be adorned with a red carpet upon my return.

    3. Re:The Internet exists outside America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the US invented flouride toothpaste and we're not sharing.

    4. Re:The Internet exists outside America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think anyone would share *your* toothpaste ?

    5. Re:The Internet exists outside America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't make brushes that shape.

    6. Re:The Internet exists outside America by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, and Level 3 and UUNet are global companies, in case you haven't noticed.

      Nothing like some knee-jerk US-bashing.

  80. The TURF changes by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    We never learn i guess. This monoply will again lead to antitrust cases mebbe 10 yesrs from now.. and by then, the states may be powerless to stop anything

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  81. Re:Ha! Great. by ScRipT+KiDDiE+L33T!! · · Score: -1

    Possible the most overkill i have ever seen, but still fucking funny.

    Script Kiddies would be proud!

  82. Congrats! by gazbo · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I've been scanning this article for your jokes, they are all pretty good (evn though I've heard many before) but this one actually had be laughing out loud.

    Good job I'm not in the office or I'd have to explain what was so funny.

    1. Re:Congrats! by on+by · · Score: -1

      HTH - so much for our scrabble huh? You gonna be a pisshead this weekend as well? :) onya mate!

    2. Re:Congrats! by gazbo · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Right now, tonight, or tomorrow morning. I fucking promise, cross my heart and fuck my mother in her grave.

      Gaz

  83. Call me Paranoid... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 3, Interesting
    But there was a story on Slashdot about an Editorial on The Pulpit in regards to the death of TCP/IP. Robert Cringley's article puts forth the idea that Microsoft wishes to banish the protocol in favor of its own non-anonymous, proprietary system.

    If Bill Gates owned every single piece of fiber in the US, it's definately a step in that direction. Perhaps even the only thing preventing a standards change now.

    You can find the article here:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802. html

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  84. I know someone that was way ahead of buffet by manofherb · · Score: 1

    I watched the price jump by $10 a share 2 weeks ago when my gramps bought the stock, maybe I should listen to him instead of buffet.

  85. Re:Teleco...You don't knonw BillG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I miss something? Where in the article does it say that Gates sitll has shares in WorldComm?
    He "apparently" sold his 15% stake in WorldComm.

    BillG is to competition what food is to a fat babe. He craves it...Err destroying it.

  86. Gates Has No Interest In Directly Owning Telcom by Alt_Cognito · · Score: 0

    The simple obvious reason that gates doesn't want to directly own telcom companies is his company is built on high margin intellectual capital they barely support. Why go mucking that up and have a giant arm of the company with tons of physical assets, support issues, and real complications. It's just not necessary for how he wants to run the show. It's a software company, not a hardware company.

  87. Land-line telecom not a good long-term investment by hargettp · · Score: 1

    Communications will be all about wireless.

    Let's look at the 802.11x market: the little local guys who used to pull Cat 5 for companies are probably sufferring, because a lot of companies are moving to 802.11x.

    Wireless home networks (and public ones, such as at Starbuck's or public parks) are ruining the chances of the major equipment manufacturers to move their existing product lines into homes.

    Those same networks are causing broadband providers to fuss about "bandwidth sharing" as if it were a capital offense.

    Every week new technologies are announced that extend the reach (and reliability) of wireless networks. Five years ago, only the adventurous would connect a corporate campus using only wireless. Now wireless MANs can connect an entire city.

    Let's take another wireless technology, that which makes cellphones possible. AT&T, the grandfather of modern telecommunications, is practically out of the long-distance market. It's wireless division has been going gangbusters for the last 5 years. That means AT&T, who built most of the land-lines in the world, including the last mile to most homes, is still making great money, but not off those decades of investment in cabling.

    Oh, one more: we live in a security conscious world. Fear of weak physical infrastructure means the US Government (and military) is continualy looking for ways to remove single points of failure from essential public or strategic infrastructure.

    Add it all up? Investment in physical telecom infrastructure is sure loser in the long-term. If Gates wants to "own" the land-lines, so be it. With the continued growth (and interest) in wireless technology, using wires to connect people and machines will become old-fashioned and a specialty need. One can cut a trunk cable to block communications, but you have to be good to block every wireless communication technology under the sun.

    Sure, all that investment in last mile cabling and undersea pathways and trans-national networks won't rot overnight. There may always be a need for such networks, but only as a specialty. As time goes on, the need or such networks will be reduced, as the continued evolution of cheap, effective wireless technology makes all of it seem antiquated.

    So even if I was paranoid enough to believe Bill Gates could pull off such a feat as owning the Internet (how many billion in cash does Microsoft have right now?), it may not matter for very long.

  88. Level3 has connection with MS!?!? by Ilgaz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Gee,that explains the problems I lived on broadcast.yahoo.com with Opera... Oh it can't be true? I mean, they completely ignore Opera browser (unknown browser) on their so called "media wizard" or something... also,wait... They select windows media by default, even if you have latest realplayer installed... Most cool of all, while all this stupidness and browser discrimination happens (note,exprienced guys, starting from Opera 6,it supports liveconnect), I see a single tiny logo... "Level3 enabled"

    I don't want to believe all my unanswered feedback, stupid replies like "no it doesn't support" while watching videos etc on other places like CNN, doesn't happen just because of that tiny logo and its partner or something?

    Can't be that simple? or?

  89. Whatever happened by Ilgaz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Its a sad story, its something not explained by family and Slashdot takes my respect for not publishing it.

    Also, seeing morons like you trying to run "another slashdot" via messages(as the guy on thread cleverly pointed) makes me sick and also more sure it was a good thing not to cover it via Slashdot.

  90. Bill Gates = L. Bob Rife ? by kriegsman · · Score: 2

    Snow Crash here we come.

    -Mark

  91. The error in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gates could approach Buffett to buy it all. Gates would own the Internet.

    Huh?

    What a ridiculous conclusion. By the article's author's reasoning Martians could land on earth as well. Atlantis could be found. Pigs could fly. The article was completely tangential to his conclusion and did not support it in the least.

  92. Another point by Spunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While this would be unlikely behavior for Gates, it's even less likely for Buffett.

    His strategy is based on taking a very long-term view. Generally, when he buys stock (or the company, outright) he intends to hold on to it "forever." Why would he go ahead and sell this company he just invested in - to make a quick buck? Not his style at all.

  93. Re:Land-line telecom not a good long-term investme by Enry · · Score: 2
    Communications will be all about wireless.

    Let's look at the 802.11x market: the little local guys who used to pull Cat 5 for companies are probably sufferring, because a lot of companies are moving to 802.11x.
    Uhm...right. Wireless can't get me 100Mbps or 1000Mbps like cat5/fiber can. Until then, wireless is best suited to PDAs and laptops. At my house, the desktops are all cabled while my laptop and Zaurus are on 802.11. At work, there is some wireless, but security issues have everyone looking for a better solution. The cable pullers are still very much in business here, and I don't think they will be fearing for teir jobs for quite a while.

  94. What does Warren Buffet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have to do with Bill Gates?

    They aren't the same person, are they? Or is it Michael/Latoya/Bill/Warren split personality?

    The two are so different it isn't even funny.

    It boggles the imagination. Buffet doesn't tend to invest in companies to make money simply on the stock trade. He tends to buy things (businesses) to make them profitable, and profit off the business more than the stock.

    Bill has MS, and then a huge stock portfolio. He doesn't really run other businesses.

  95. Linus and Gates by ylikone · · Score: 1

    Just glancing at the title I thought it had something to do with rivalry between Linux Torvalds and Bill Gates.

    --
    Meh.
  96. Buffett and Gates should learn. by HowlinMad · · Score: 1

    They should both take a lesson from the real Buffett -- Jimmy and get wasted away in margaritaville!!

    --
    Great Linux Site
    1. Re:Buffett and Gates should learn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jimmy and Warren Buffett are, in fact, related. I believe I remember reading that they are third cousins.

  97. Re:Ha! Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NICE FLAME!!!!

  98. 12 hours? by Talisman · · Score: 2

    "That is, if one can ignore latency of 12 hours..."

    You must not be an American. I start climbing the walls if my pizza takes longer than 20 minutes.

    Talisman

    --

    "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
  99. Re:Land-line telecom not a good long-term investme by opto · · Score: 1
    Let's take another wireless technology, that which makes cellphones possible. AT&T, the grandfather of modern telecommunications, is practically out of the long-distance market. It's wireless division has been going gangbusters for the last 5 years. That means AT&T, who built most of the land-lines in the world, including the last mile to most homes, is still making great money, but not off those decades of investment in cabling.
    AFAIK the cellular technology only uses wireless from the phone to the nearest tower. From then on it's landline based. I see land-lines as being a very sound long-term investment. Wireless will only be a last mile solution for quite a while.
  100. Re:Next Buffett will want Information-Technology.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll give you a quarter for it.

  101. Sounds like Gramps is broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Level 3 Communications is trading at $6 now.

    Did Gramps also buy LNUX at $200?

  102. I also agree the article is off track by NetWurkGuy · · Score: 1

    The article plays up the soap opera angle, but Buffet is far too experienced to let personalities influence his investment decisions. OTOH, he is also famous for sticking to relatively simple businesses that he feels he understands. So does he now understand the ins and outs of fiberoptic telecom? Probably not. He is likely deviating from his normal practice. Let those tempted to follow his lead on the basis of his past success beware. In all liklihood he really is gambling on a relatively quick pickup in bandwidth demand. The denials are to discourage competative bidding for Worldcom's assets. Unfortunately, his guess about future demand is probably not any better than anyone else's. Perhaps he thinks some MS "innovations", maybe in the DRM area, will somehow spur demand.

    --
    "Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
  103. Here's another take. by elocutio · · Score: 1

    It seems that Buffet's investment in Level3 Communications is more like $100 million. The other slice of the half-billion-dollar pie is coming from partner investors, Legg Mason and Longleaf Partners. They bought the stock on the cheap, feeling that they would survive the shake-out in the telecom sector.

    Here's a good article that details the nuts and bolts of the deal.

  104. Furthurmore ... by NetWurkGuy · · Score: 1

    There is only so much bandwidth to be had from any reasonable chunk of the electomagnetic spectrum. Cell phones have gotten as far as they have mainly by using "space-division" multiplexing. I.e., the same frequency channel can be reused many time among reciever/transmitter pairs that are sufficienly far separated and use sufficiently low power. But how much greater can the density of cell phone towers go given that it is not even just placement but cost that must be considered?

    --
    "Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
  105. Re:Next Buffett will want Information-Technology.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I know it's hard to believe, but Warren Buffett didn't achieve his billions by simply watching the supposedly "negligible" transfer fees slip by.

    Proper accounting is good for wealth generation. Poor accounting is only good for a few select officers of a few companies (Enron, Worldcom)

  106. its for the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the bonds had a 3.41 conversion rate.
    Either way, if Level 3 blows or not, Buffet has virtually a guaranteed gain on his $500 mil.

    It's not because he suddenly likes telecom, he is not a fan of tech at all, cash, yes.

  107. Re:Land-line telecom not a good long-term investme by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 2

    Wires still rule. For long-distance hauls, relatively error-free transmission and high-speed links, fiber and wire will be the only way to go for a long time.

    Wireless is susceptible to weather, depends on line of sight, and the requirements for a quality link are very strict. Wireless is also limited by spectrum licensing, data rates, and nasty things like roof-rights and buildings cropping up 5 years later in front of your installation.

    Wireless is fine and dandy for 11Mbps LANs and 45Mbps WANs. But we're not talking about offices and campuses here. We're talking about highspeed datalinks spanning cities, states and continents.

    Even if wireless could approach the level of reliability of fiber and copper, you have that little "curvature of the earth" problem for long haul networks. And bouncing signals off sattelites is not a solution.

  108. Level 3 Network by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    Level3 is heavily in debt with junk bonds, but it has an awesome network underground in both the US and Europe. They built their fiber network in a way that can be easily updated as new fiber technologies come along. They build 12 conduits, say, and fill two with fiber. When the technology changes, they have all these empty conduits to blow new fiber through. They have co-location facilities in nearly every major city, and these facilities fill up almost immediately after construction. They are doing backbone stuff for companies like AOL. It's actually Level 3 equipment that is used for dial-up in many places. It's an all-IP network.

    Level 3 stems from Peter Kiweit (may have the spelling wrong) which is a hundred year old and extremely well respected construction company. Through some very weird transactions the base company turned into Level 3 and spun off the construction arm. The construction arm then contracted with Level 3 to build out the network!

    As I understand it, Level 3 is taking full advantage of the WorldCom and others' problems by buying up local loops these other companies are dumping because of their distress. Of course, their stock has doubled in price in the last week because of the Buffett news. Then again, that makes it worth $5.00 when two years ago it was in the $80.00 range, so maybe that's not saying much.

    My belief is that when bandwidth demand creeps up, as it surely MUST, Level 3 is going to be there to take advantage.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:Level 3 Network by elocutio · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, Level3 isn't in debt because of junk bonds; they're in debt because they're leveraging their infrastructure on credit. Their stock rating is "junk," but if you'll check where the pickers have positioned every other stock in the telecom sector, you'll see that of any 10 small-cap telecom companies in the industry, 9 of them currently have a junk rating. It's more of an artifact of the market-wide downturn than an actual picture of how this stock can perform. Check out their stock chart, and you can quickly see that depending on how they ride out the current storms in the sector, this could be a really attractive, albeit risky, buy.

  109. There's a new restaurant in Omaha by KlomDark · · Score: 2

    It's called the Warren Buffet - all you can eat, right inside Nebraska Furniture Mart/Megamart (Nebraska's attempt at a Fry's clone)

  110. Offtopic, sad but Offtopic by Groovus · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice that whenever we hear about these mutigazillion dollar acquisitions and mergers all that's ever talked about is obtaining an already existing product and by extension an already existing customer base? You never hear about them, I don't know, maybe intending to create a NEW product or something? Think about the amount of money that is spent just shifting ownership from one entity to another with no items of actual worth (a subjective term I know, but I think you get the idea) being created. More likely, jobs will be lost as a result. Here's a crazy idea, how about we take all that money and invest in more research or supporting fledgeling inventions or industries. I'd love to see a breakdown of total dollars spent on mergers/acquisitions vs. R&D in this country, I bet the discrepancy is staggering.

    It's just one more example of how here in the U.S. we've totally transitioned from being a nation and society of mostly producers to being a nation and society of mostly consumers - be it multibillion dollar companies, customer bases, automobiles, hamburgers or lousy mass media. I'm not saying we should all go back to being farmers, but sweet fancy jeebus, how many middle managers, investment advisors, busines oriented laywers and accountants do we really need? We've created a bizzaro culture of championing parasitic occupations which feed off the results of an ever shrinking pool of actual producers and creators. So if you're with me, go out there and hug an artist, craftsman or scientist (even a computer scientist) today!

    Thanks for putting up with me, I think I'll go buy something now.

    1. Re:Offtopic, sad but Offtopic by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      That's because the research arms of most companies, while potentially of a major benefit, are typically a small consideration. If you bought, say Cisco, do you think more money would be coming out of the existing sales, or out of the R&D department? (Ignore the common barbs against Cisco's R&D.) While R&D could come up with some really great products, that will be then, not now.

      The customer base is also important. Consider that if you have 100,000 customers, and your target company has 50,000 customers, if there is no direct competition between your company and your target, you now have a 50% larger potential customer base for your original products, and triple the porential customer base for your target. It's a simplified view, I know, but it's still a strong consideration.

      Finally, keep in mind that sometimes it's the smaller companies that don't get advertised that a company buys to allow expansion of the products. Maybe they see that a little $1M a year company is on the right track, but does not and perhaps will never have the capital to make it big. When your $5B a year company offers $5M plus stock and a job with a hefty raise to this little guy, the media isn't going to pay much attention, and the sale will likely end up as a brief press release or perhaps no more than a blurb in the "What happened yesterday in brief" column of the business section of your local paper. The sum total of it would be something like, "XYZ Corp. (Symbol: XYZ) purchased the privately held ABC, Inc., yesterday for $10M is cash and stock." That's often it.

      If you know where to look, you'll see these things. The trick is, there are thousands of publicly-traded companies, and monitoring the sales of all of them can be very tricky.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  111. Re:Land-line telecom not a good long-term investme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Land-line telecom not a good long-term investment

    So, you know more about investing than Warren Buffet? Somehow, I doubt that very much.

  112. Buffet loses his faith? by loz · · Score: 1
    Buffet has always stated that he doesn't understand technology at all and would therefor never invest in it. In all the decenia he's been investing, he has never invested in a tech company before. He acknowledged he missed all the super profits of the technology sector made in the 80's and 90's, yet he claims not to be distressed by that, as he's never been able to judge whether a tech company posseses a durable competitive advantage. As he writes in his 1999 annual report:

    Our lack of tech insights, we should add, does not distress us. After all, there are a great many business areas in which Charlie and I have no special capital-allocation expertise. For instance, we bring nothing to the table when it comes to evaluating patents, manufacturing processes or geological prospects. So we simply don't get into judgments in those fields.

    The author of the article doesn't know Buffet's style that well. When Buffet invests he tends to keep his stocks for many many years. But who knows, this is a strange move of Buffet, he might make another strange move and sell to Gates in the short term.

    By the way, Buffet only invested $100 million, which is a very small investment compared with his other investments. The rest of the $500 million investment is from two others. This too is quite strange, as usually Buffet goes after majority ownership. loz

  113. Walter Scott by loz · · Score: 1
    two significant bits the article missed:
    • Walter Scott is a director of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet's main company
    • Walter Scott is the chairman of Level 3

    loz

  114. Wait a second... by EMDischarge · · Score: 1

    Didn't Klez render this point moot?

    --
    Quintus malus puer est.
  115. Or... by EdMcMan · · Score: 1
    Gates could approach each company with a large sum of cash, and buy them. MicroFiber, small wires going a long way. Seriously, he has enough.

    I love the pun...

    The link was broken, it has now been fixed. Sorry about that.

  116. Re:Ha! Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    congratulations, this was extremely well done. I was laughing from about a quarter of a way through to the end of that over-wrought genius post :)