Is Comcast going to buy Yahoo?

A good deal has been written about Brian Roberts, CEO Comcast, announcement that 160mbps connections are just around the corner. The problem is the internet was built on best effort relationships and is nothing more than a bunch of networks connected together with no quality control on where or how these various networks interconnect. Without some standard for interconnections it is impossible for Comcast to guarantee any performance of packets once they leave the Comcast network. The network is as strong as it's weakest link so even though you may have the ability to get 160mbps, chances are you won't if the origin of your requested content is not physically in/on your AS.

IMHO this is more about setting the stage for a new approach to the comcast network than bandwidth to the internet in general. It is in Comcast's best interest to get as much capacity on their own network as possible because it gives them a huge advantage over the likes of Google, MSFT, YHOO, Fox, etc when it comes to QoS on specific applications. Besides, there is no possible way this could scale out to the internet and that is on purpose....meaning comcast will never be able to guarantee 160mbps anywhere but on their own network. These ever evolving broadband local networks with some overlay backbone connecting them together is the ideal situation for p2p distribution. At the end of the day, comcast wants to keep those packets on it's network as long as possible because then and only then do they maintain 100% control. In doing so they have leverage with the customers who are mainly home users. Service for the enterprise is not far behind nor hard to accomplish...a simple dedicated line between the enterprise and comcast's network and the enterprise is connected. Or better yet, the enterprise could outsource their IT services such as email, CRM, storage, collaboration, voice, video conf. etc. to Comcast and be guaranteed XX Mbps throughput from an employees homes to the corporate environment. Given all of the local and federal incentives for going green which will trickle down to driving companies to promote telecommuting even more than they are now, this is actually a valuable service to be able to offer. Add video conferencing, voip, VOD, etc on top of it and they'll have a network that offers an enterprise customer the most efficient way to address all of their voice/IP/IT requirements. In doing so it also de-stresses comcast's reliance on upstream links by using them less(assuming p2p is in place) and relying more and more on peering. Comcast was one of the early peering sluts so to speak, when other MSOs thought peering was what you did when you teamed up with your second grade classmate to do a bookreport, Comcast was signing network peering deals with anyone who sends a fair amount of traffic to them or vice versa.

I have mentioned Surewest previously and they are currently offering fiber to the home in Sacramento. For customers where this is available, everything (voice, HDTV, IP, VOD, catv, etc) are delivered over IP. It may seem cutting edge and far too complicated for a dumb old cable company to accomplish but comcast is no TCI even if they are saddled with some of the TCI infrastructure, Brian Roberts gets it and embraced it long ago. If that isn't enough, IP really is proving the most efficient delivery medium available. @home was developing products and applications around these virtues and Comcast has merely expanded on that vision.

IMHO, so take it for what its worth, Comcast and Google are the two powerhouses today. Comcast should buy Yahoo or better yet, pull a trifecta Comcast/MSFT/YHOO combo. That would be the google killer. Why bring in MSFT? They have lots of cash, a great revenue stream, lifelong customers and can turn office apps into a hosted infrastructure which yhoo no comcast have done. All of these services may even be free to the end user because they'll all be subsidized by advertising. After all, it is advertising that drives goog's revs and it will be advertising or subscription fees(I view them as the same as they should be mutually exclusive) that surpass licensing revenue of software vendors. Remember, advertisers are fickle and will spend their dollars where they think they are going to get the best return. As such, when a comcast user needs to access google servers, it is comcast who controls how well that user gets that packet back and it isn't necessarily in their best interest to make it smooth and seemless. Think about it, causing poor user experiences with google is one way to discourage ad spend with google. One piece at a time and sooner or later it all adds up to a significant threat to google's so called "unfair advantage"

No bubble here. Just efficiency.

Who said bubble? Nick Douglas has an interesting post on why he believes we aren't in a bubble. Ok ok, it's more of a rant on old timers(30yo and above according to Zuckerburg) that continually piss Chicken Little off by using his 'sky is falling' bit and not giving credit where credit is due. Nick may be right and I think he is. This isn't a bubble.

From one old timer(yes that would be me, 13 years ago in May I started my post educational career with NETCOM, who btw, was the very first pure play internet company to do an IPO) to another and to you non bubble veterans; this is different. Much different.

Why you ask? Here are a few important facts that come to mind:

- ubiquity in broadband access - access to a bb connection has grown exponentially. you don't even need a land line. wireless providers like sprint offer 700-800kbps connections that work. many consumers have a choice of which broadband provider they use. both of those issues were a pipe dream in web1.0 for lack of a better term. soon bb will be free. yes, i mean you will get a free broadband connection, likely wifi, wimax or some other wireless last mile so to speak. what am i talking about? see below

- a $15B a year advertising platform. huh? show me one F100 company with a marketing budget who doesn't buy online advertising. they aren't just experimenting people, they are budgeting a major piece if not the majority of their ad dollars in the online arena. why you ask? wake up!! it is the most efficient way to target their audience. example, if you use google mail or calendar or picasso or blogger or any other of their hosted apps, chances are pretty high that google knows much more about you than you think. don't believe it? next time you open your gmail account and open a msg in it, look at the ads. they are targeted by the words used in the text/body of your msg. what does this have to do with a bubble you ask? stay with me because it means everything. for example sake, we will assume i am a baseball card fanatic(no, I'm not but I'm too lame to think of something else and it doesn't really matter anyway) but not just any baseball card fanatic, I'm one who likes only the Fleer brand. Well now, google in this example(or whoever google shares info with) has knowledge based on my emails and blogging and searches that I like Fleer cards. so what. well for starters google can approach fleer and offer them a very targeted customer acquisition approach that is SUCCESS BASED. meaning fleer doesn't pay a dime unless they get a result. in the past fleer has advertised in trade rags and through partnerships, neither of which are cost effective or efficient. fleer is one example but now lets take a look at the local card dealer in my neighborhood. this card dealer now has the ability to target me too and it too can be success based. this guys advertising up until now has been on the back of the little league opening day pamphlet that gets tossed in the garbage or left in the bleachers to blow away and be lost until the mowers chop it to pieces. the only similarity to web1.0 is that there are still lawnmowers and the baseball card dealer is still in business(remember he wasn't supposed to be because the internet would replace him and all of the other realtors, car dealers, stockbrokers, grocery stores, etc).

if that isn't enough here is more;

- web1.0 ideas were great but ahead of their time. remember the asp/msp space? guys like nonstopnet, one secure, totality, exodus, etc. those companies are who paved the way for companies like salesforce.com, google(yes google), microsoft(yes microsoft) and apple(yes apple) to be doing what they're doing today. and that is selling software as a service. it's not like web1.0 where startups were selling services to other startups. this is the real deal. every enterprise today has email. where is it hosted? most of the time it is NOT hosted on the premises, it is outsourced to companies like Yahoo or Critical Path(old timers may get the irony on that one). this is startups selling to enterprises and enterprises are buying because it is the most efficient way for them to do business. it's all about efficiency and the current form of the internet offers an astronomically more efficient platform than we were graced with ten years ago.

- cost of bandwidth. a t1(that is a 1.54Mbps connection) cost over $1000 per month ten years ago for the access to the isp port, whose backbone was probably way oversold so you never stood a chance of getting that to the internet, plus the local transport fee(aka local loop) of approximately $500 a month to the local telco. That works out to $1000 per mbps. Today i get 8mbps for like $40 a month from my cable company. that would have cost me $8000 ten years ago and i would have had to purchase $10k + worth of hardware and know how to manage it. today my mom is online and she is the least common denominator when it comes to clue. that is just ten years. she btw, was a naysayer back in web1.0 but you won't hear her dissing internet companies now. lets examine the efficiency gain to the consumer. what used to cost $8k a month and be available only to consumers with a very specific technical skill is now available to every tom, dick and harry with no tech skills for $40 a month. That is a 500% gain in the utility of each dollar i spend for internet access and that doesn't touch the growth in the viable user population.

- storage - storage was expensive ten years ago and ten years from now we will think it was expensive today. cost is one piece of the storage puzzle but not all of it. we didn't have SOX, HIPPA and all of the other government regulations we do today. a couple things have fueled this besides uncle sam rearing his big head and they are, by virtue of the efficiency of the internet, more communication occurs and as such, the exponential demand placed on the ability access to the data of those communications. historically, if i had a conversation with my coworker, the employer never knew it even took place. today if i have a conversation(IM or email, or voip) the employer is required to record the digital content of such communications. what was an interaction that was available only to me and my coworker is now available to anyone with permission to view it. this is exponential growth in the population of demand creation as it pertains to the data that originated from an interaction amongst my coworker and me.

Due to uncle sam's regulations, companies must hold on to copies of that communication for a period of time. these companies aren't cutting down trees and printing this stuff on reams and reams of paper. they're putting it on disk. proctor and gamble's internal communications for a single month probably used to kill an entire forest and cost millions of dollars to store in a secure facility and take thousands of man hours and thousand of dollars in gas and diesel to transport now can be done virtually and put on a small piece of plastic(sorry, i know it's deeper than just being plastic but i'm trying to prove a point) and accessed by anyone anywhere. that is a far cry from the IT guy having to call up iron mountain and have them fedex the tape from june of 1999 to the office. we've become accustomed to accessing our own personal data be it photos, music, writings, news, live video of your dog napping all day, whatever floats your boat, it all requires storage and we all have access to it. we didn't ten years ago.

as Nick Douglas points out, it seems like a fair amount of this naysaying is coming from old schoolers players who alarmed the masses with web2. over and out comments and Mark "only a moron would buy youtube" Cuban. if i'm sitting on the sidelines and i hear a billionaire and his compadre trying to scare people away from investing in the exact sectors they do, I think one thing and it's sales 101, FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt only they using it inversely. most sales people use it to bring you in, they use it to scare you away. gotta love the effort, scare the competition away and there are less $ in the investment funds which means the cost of capital goes up which means Mark(he's an investor) and VCs get better returns and lessen their own risk. the fact of the matter is if you're in the internet space today, you chose to be. that wasn't the case 14 years ago. back then if you were a realtor you weren't part of the internet. today if you're a realtor you don't have to be a member of the internet community at large but chances are it's not even a decision you conscientiously make, you just are because it makes your job more efficient. If an investor really believed that there was no opportunity to get a high rate of return on investments which, at their core, are bringing efficiency to an already established market(something a certain someone refers to as being a copycat) then we would all be driving Fords and flying on PanAm, PSA and TWA. But we aren't because investors provided the capital to young upstarts whose sole intent it was to be a copycat, just a more efficient cat than the copied cat.

I don't know this as a fact but I would find it hard to believe that the aggregate success rate on VC investments as defined by an exit which produces a return of at least the initial investment and the cost of that money over that period has gone up or down much from 1997 to 2007. The supply of $ to invest has probably increased which logically means the actual invested $ is greater now than it was ten years ago which implies that more money will be lost next year than it was in 1998. You don't need to be able to explain the Black-Scholes option pricing model to pick that up. It's common sense, right? It's cyclical, right? Yes to both but go back and look at history and tie successful investments, as defined above, in both peaks and valleys and you will probably see those investments were made in copycat companies. Does Google ring a bell? Does Salesforce.com ring a bell? Does Apple ring a bell? Does Oracle ring a bell? Does Siebel ring a bell? Does etrade ring a bell? Does Schwab ring a bell? Does Ticketmaster ring a bell? They should, they're all copying someone before them only doing it in a more efficient manner.

Point is if you define a bubble as a period of time in which many companies fail then we have never not been in a bubble. If it is defined as a period in which there exist a larger supply of $ to invest than in the past then you skipped the macro econ class that explained supply and demand, velocity of money and trickle down effects of the survival of the fittest, or in this case most efficient, attributes of free market capitalism. You see, we don't need anyone to tell us we're in a bubble, if we were the market would be telling us and the dollars would be shifting towards greater efficiencies in financial investing and resource allocation... ie, advertising $$.

I'm a big believer in Marshall McCluhan's theory on the global village and how it has the ability to transform what are/were isolated micro economies into a more grand macro economy while providing a platform for their seemless interoperability, aka trade, amongst themselves. If you have even an inkling of that notion then you have to recognize the irony of it all (third paragraph from the bottom). If people believe what was supposed to be possible isn't possible then the opportunity for VCs or other suppliers of money to exploit that gap between the possible and reality is nil.

Bubble it is not. Easier access to money it is. Easier access to money means greater competition to sell your money to buyers(entrepreneurs). Greater competition means the odds of any one investment being the home run you need go down. The easiest way to make the competition go away? FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.

Chicken Little can sleep well tonight. He will find the sky is still there, above him, when he wakes up in the morning.

When the online advertising market stops growing or shows signs of shrinkage when compared to the actual dollars spent the period before, then you should worry that what is possible and what is real are too far apart to be the same and recognize it for what it is and know that naturally, just like a sonet ring, there are self healing attributes which will prevail and the market will retrace to a state of equilibrium. If that happens, it won't take long for the hyping of the 'what is possible' to start all over again.

Next up: GoogleNET

They are giving away everything else, why not connectivity too? Its all about efficiency right? Operational efficiency, risk mitigation efficiency and customer efficiency. Efficiency is the driving force behind Googlenet(gnet). What is GNet? Google's foray into the ISP business. This 'business' for them can be classified as marketing or a means to an end. The end being, selling advertising.

The gnet hypothesis: Bandwidth costs have fallen to a level that the advertising revenue more than subsidizes the cost of the network. We are in the very early stages of a true 'gloabl village' as Marshall McCluhan called it. The cost structure for a traditional ISP like PacBell DSL..errr AT&T, comcast, etc to supply services to the residence is around $40 per month and trends down as they grow because they get cost scale.... in the network world, the more you buy the less it costs.

goog will be placing a bet, and a very calculated one, that advertising $$ will not only subsidize operational costs of providing free services(isp, voip, office, etc), but will exceed them.

Owning the customer's network routes from end to end(being the ISP) provides Google with private solution for delivering customized content and adverting to each and every one of the people using their service. this delivery platform is always on and knows where you go, what you type, where you live, who your friends are, what files you have downloaded, what you look like, and whatever else they add on to their services. So when Johnson & Johnson or GE or Proctor & Gamble or Coca Cola or Pepsi is planning their media buys for the next year do you think they'll purchase advertisements on radio, television, print or the 4th network(Google)? based on the ability to target a specific population that has certain attributes you desire, the choice is clear...you pick google. Why? because you know that your marketing msg is going to a qualified prospect as opposed to the traditional 'shotgun' approach. plus, you can get results in realtime and tweak your msg if its not working in real time. with the other three media you are somewhat ratholed into trusting some third party for ratings that may or may not even reach the people that you want it to. by the time you figure this out a slew of things can happen...some good some bad but why chance it when you don't need to.

At the end of the day, Google is building a traditional media killer and the funny thing is..actually not really funny but kinda, that the writing is on the wall but nobody seems to believe it. I do. @Home Network had this vision but couldn't pull it off because the cable co's couldn't get their heads out of their rear to see the opportunity that was sitting right in front of them.

goog already has deals in place and likely in the works with the producers of original content which will allow their users access to that content. if i'm a content producer where would i want my content to be seen? ex. let's say you are the producer of The Office and goog offers you the ability to place your content on their network so that it can be viewed by anyone, anywhere, anytime and offers a revenue share or some other creative structure around it such that you know your worst case scenario beforehand. simple choice right? sure abc or cbs might offer an upfront fee in the form of $$ per show but the audience is limited, the timeslot is finite and in order for someone to view it, they have to purchase cable tv or satellite or whatever whereas on the google network you content would be globally accessible and the broadband access which replaces the cable or satellite tv service, is free to the masses. additionally you can develop complimentary services that engauge your viewership such that you are able to really develop a community around you content as opposed to content around a community.

What does this have to do with being an ISP? Everything, why do you think there is such a brouhaha over net neutrality? Without connectivity none of this is possible and with the right connectivity, all of it is possible and defendable.

The internet hasn't changed anything. The driving force of media is and always will be advertising. Without it, there would be no televsion, radio, print or internet. It doesn't matter if its old world or new world, it's still dependent upon advertising and gnet is to google what airwaves were to ABC, NBC and CBS, something to exploit in order to sell advertising.

It's true, what goes around does come around!

I wouldn't go putting the kids education fund into MSFT now or anytime soon. Aside from being a great example of karma and adding a validity to the saying, 'what goes around comes around', I wouldn't do so for several other reasons, all of them SV companies. GOOG, CRM, EBAY, AAPL, Sling.

Google because they are building out the infrastructure to support a true distributed computing grid that is device agnostic. Devices won't require on OS from MSFT which renders them much less powerful than was the case with the last 20 years of the PC evolution. Distributed grid that will support free access to anyone, anywhere, at anytime. Think about that, it is power beyond comprehension.

CRM - Salesforce.com mainly because with their APEX, they are building the next generation platform for global trade of goods and services. With the global ubiquity in access, the flow of information which may have been impossible in recent history is suddendly happening in real time. With access to information, people gain knowledge and with knowledge they become marketable. When something is marketable it has value. You get the point?

Ebay - PayPal was the purchase of the century for ebay. While they(eBay) too have the ability to be the commerce platform of the future global economy, their bigger opportunity is to be the arbitrator of financial transactions akin to a sort of clearing house for electronic units of value. They're already doing this to some degree and they've got a hell of a head start on anyone else by virtue of their current business.

AAPL - iPod was great for them. iPhone will blow the doors off iPod's results. Finally, it has arrived. Apple just delivered the equivalent of what Segway was hyped up to deliver.

Sling Media - As long as the networks as we know them today are in existence, there will be a high degree of value placed on circumventing the detributes of broadcast. Slingbox does just that and as ubiquity in broadband access gets closer to equilibrium, the value of the service to each user and of the user to Sling grow at increasing rates.