Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech101 who wrote (17114)	10/6/2006 7:04:58 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Google's hands would really be full to the point of dealing with the untenable, if it elected at this time to go into all (or even a significant number of) neighborhoods. If they did so, it would have to be by some other means than organically. It's in the last mile and in some regions, in the second mile, that the prospective fiber that you mentioned would be required in order to speed up video delivery in a uniform manner. For now, the company has all to do in order to keep its WAN and its distributed server factories fluid, and its burdens in those areas only increase as it grows and adds enhancements to its offerings. For the moment, Google is almost entirely dependent on the ILECs, the MSOs and other established residential network providers for the delivery of its services and "products" to end users, and this is how it will very likely remain for the foreseeable future, if not always. I think I've mentioned this here in the past, but I've questioned a trusted source within Google about this recently, and the reply I received, minus my own speculation about its growth issues and the "always" part, was consistent with the above.

To: tech101 who wrote (17114)	10/7/2006 2:46:23 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Tech101, Before now I'd not taken the time to fully understand and study the implications of why Cuban called anyone who'd buy YouTube a moron. Even when you put aside the fact that Google already has a viable and somewhat successful video arsenal, his comments make for some interesting speculation when you consider his admonitions over the potential for legal suits due to YT's apparent, or should I say alleged, illegal proliferation of copyrighted materials. The latter, juxtaposed with Google's digital library copyright liabilities, suggests a gorilla flexing its muscles, and doing so in a way that is perhaps nitwittedly. Here's a September 29th account, once again: Cuban: Only a 'moron' would buy YouTube HDNet co-founder says video sharing outfit will eventually be "sued into oblivion" over copyright violations, points at limited advertising reach of YouTube. September 29 2006 tinyurl.com --- And here is a later article in today's NY Times: Google Is Said to Set Sights on YouTube By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and PETER EDMONSTON October 7, 2006 YouTube, the popular video-sharing Web site that has yet to celebrate its first anniversary or its first profit, is quickly becoming the must-have prize for media and technology giants. Google is in discussions to acquire YouTube for $1.6 billion, people involved in the talks said yesterday. While the talks are in the early stages, and may fall apart, the size of Google’s offer may push YouTube closer to a deal. Other companies have also expressed interest and could swoop in with a higher offer. Microsoft, Yahoo, Viacom and the News Corporation, among others, have all visited YouTube’s headquarters in San Mateo, Calif., in recent months to inquire about buying the company. The frenzied hunt to acquire the next hot Internet property — MySpace last year and now YouTube — has become reminiscent of the first Internet boom, as companies bid up prices of sites whose ability to generate profits is the subject of much debate. A deal for YouTube would be the crowning moment for a property that emerged as a cultural phenomenon almost immediately after it officially began last December. Its site, which delivers more than 100 million video clips a day, allows users to share a broad array of offerings from news clips to home movies to spoofs — sometimes funny but often simply crude — created by ordinary users. Continued at: tinyurl.com ------/snip One analyst in the above article states: "[T]he company has about 50 million users worldwide, which works out to a purchase price of about $32 a user." What, those users are not alos users of Google' search, maps, and even video? Anyway, think of the opposing forces at play here. As one of the articles mentions, content owners may even be warming up to YT, indeed, some have cut deals with them. And why would the owner of a coyyrighted video want to sue a couple of kids with a startup who don't stand to make a profit off their company for the foreseeable future, anyway, except to make an example of them a la Napster in an effort to thwart copy-cats? But Google, the richest kid on the block at a time when traditional video markets are dwindling rapidly? I don't think owners of copyrighted works and their commercial backers would have any problems going after them. None, whatsoever. If the wind shifts a certain way, it could even be akin to a class action suit by asbestos victims going after Monsanto. What do you think? ------ FAC