Shared publicly  - 
 
I think this is really important
"Big picture, the trends we're seeing in tech, with these companies becoming massive with relatively little need to burn cash is a major force towards ongoing low interest rates, as investors find fewer and fewer opportunities to deploy cash."

I'd start by going contrary: With interest rates low and cash ready to hand, now would be the time to plough massive investments into fundamental base infrastructure for network companies: fiber, datacenter floor, and CE equipment.
11
2
Reverend Dave's profile photoTony Przygienda's profile photoMark Cross's profile photoForrest Thiessen's profile photo
7 comments
 
How do you propose to get the providers to invest in infrastructure? Netflix has basically brought home delivery of connectivity to its knees. Seattle's Gigabit Squared is dead http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/gigabit-project-in-seattle-reportedly-dead-leaves-trail-of-unpaid-bills/

and Murray is talking to Comcast http://www.geekwire.com/2014/mayor-ed-murray-public-broadband/

who have bandwidth and customer service problems as it is.

And if Seattle can't get its physical infrastructure act together, who can? Philly maybe?
 
Regulatory games are outside context for this. The last-mile system is much more nuanced - eg. why invest when there is no competition?
 
well, that is exactly why no-one has invested. And the need to break up monopolies has been pointed out for over a year now, but there does not seem to be widespread consumer demand for improvement of these services. Just grousing about Netflix bogging down.

Then again, social media trends can move like schooling fish... I don't think politicians are going to demand regulatory change without voter demand, and the infrastructures already have their lobbyists deployed in the halls of Capitol Hill. How does the will and demand for regulatory change get kickstarted, since you seem to have a lot of ideas tonight?
 
More Google Fiber to the Home pls!!!!
 
If there was justice in America Larry Summers would be where Bernie Madoff is.
 
Investment is going to be constrained until there's a clear indicator that there will be return on that investment. Right now, there are a couple very large players (who, to the extent it is possible for an outsider to tell, are investing heavily) operating at a scale where the economies-of-scale cost curve is a barrier to anyone else reaching intermediate-term viability in the current market.
 
right, put in 100M$ into infra, take risk of building deep-experience team, 2-4 years of busting tail, maybe market turning on you, get an exit of 800M$ to 1B$ (~8x) vs. put bunch of hot teenagers in Palo Alto office with 1 to 5M$, throw together an App in a year, get out with 1B$ (~1000x).  VCs ain't completely stupid ;-) 
Add a comment...