Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Friday, 31 July 2009
Hot Dogs and getting cancer
Now Playing: the meat industry and your health
Topic: BIG MONEY PLAYERS
Z3 Readers I quit eating hot dogs a few years ago ...after I read how Ralph Nader quit eating them, I "wised up" and did the same
Lawsuit: Hot dogs need warning label
Posted Jul 30 2009, 11:30 AM by Karen Datko
This post comes from Jon Hood at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.
Many modern-day baseball stadiums prohibit smoking, but cancer danger apparently still lurks around the corner: An anti-meat consumer group alleges in a class-action that hot dogs pose serious health risks and need to carry warning labels.
The lawsuit was filed in Essex County, N.J., by The Cancer Project on behalf of three New Jersey residents. Among the named defendants are Nathan's Famous; Kraft Foods, which manufactures Oscar Mayer wieners; Sara Lee; ConAgra, which makes Hebrew National franks; and Marathon, manufacturer of Sabrett, "the frankfurter New Yorker's [sic] relish."
The plaintiffs envision a warning label similar to the one on cigarette packages. The wording would look something like: "Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer."
The suit notes that a two-year-old study from the American Institute for Cancer Research suggests that eating the amount of processed meat in a single hot dog -- about 2 ounces -- every day increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 21%. That study recommends limiting red meat consumption to 18 ounces per week, and avoiding processed meats altogether. Another study, released this year by the National Cancer Institute, found that people who eat large amounts of red and processed meats are more likely to die from cancer or cardiovascular disease.
Nitrites, used to keep hot dogs fresh, are the main culprit, according to the suit: They join themselves to naturally occurring amines, forming carcinogenic compounds.
The Cancer Project, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., is focused on promoting a healthy diet that decreases the risk of cancer. The group specifically recommends a diet that is "free of animal products, high in plant foods, and low in fat."
According to The Cancer Project, Americans ate 1.5 billion pounds of hot dogs in 2006 and the average person eats 32 pounds of processed meat a year.
Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Sunday, 26 July 2009
FBI ..says no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to Sept 11
Now Playing: The facts speak ...but who really is paying attention
Topic: 911 TRUTH
Posted by sakerfa on July 25, 2009
(ProjectCensored) – Osama bin Laden’s role in the events of September 11, 2001 is not mentioned on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” poster.
On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11.
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”
Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
Haas pauses to ask the question, “If the US government does not have enough hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to ‘smoke him out of his cave?’” Through corporate media, the Bush administration told the American people that bin Laden was “Public Enemy Number One,” responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” bin Laden and the Taliban, yet nearly six years later, the FBI said that it had no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
Though the world was to have been convinced by the December 2001 release of a bin Laden “confession video,” the Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks even before the tape was discovered.”
In a CNN article regarding the bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the US military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.”
Haas attempted to secure a reference to US government authentication of the bin Laden “confession video,” to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and US Congress, along with corporate media, presented the video as authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, notes Haas, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The participants identified in the video would be indicted. The video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why, asks Haas, is the bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Haas strongly suggests that we begin asking questions, “The fact that the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 should be headline news around the world. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the US media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the US media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government-sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account?” Haas continues. “Who is controlling the media message, and how is it that the FBI has no ‘hard evidence’ connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the US media has played the bin Laden-9/11 connection story for [six] years now as if it has conclusive evidence that bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?”
UPDATE BY ED HAAS
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”
However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.
Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video. The Muckraker Report believes that while the videotape is indeed authentic, it was the result of an elaborate CIA sting operation. The Muckraker Report also believes that the reason why there is no documentation that demonstrates that the videotape went through an authenticity process is because the CIA knew it was authentic, they arranged the taping.
It is highly probable that the videotape was taped on September 26, 2001—before the US invaded Afghanistan.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:19 AM PDT
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Joe Anybody Fundraiser is on August 15 2009
Now Playing: My fundraiser to go to Venezuela in September
Topic: SMILE SMILE SMILE
Z3 Readers, friends, activists, and family ...
This fundraiser video will be shown on 8.15.09
at the Portland Art Museum
I am raising money to go to Venezuela in September
EVERYONE IS INVITED
More information is on my website
Also be sure to check our delegation website
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Compromising Democracy in Honduras
Now Playing: An article by Shamus Cook from Portland Oregon
Z3 Readers here is an articel afriend of mine wrote this morning:
Compromising Democracy in Honduras
by shamus cook
Can a solution to the crisis in Honduras — itself the result of a military coup — be “mediated,” where on one side sit coup leaders and on the other a democratically elected but ousted President? Does any “middle ground” exist? Of course not. If President Zelaya unconditionally returns to finish his term in office, democracy will be restored; anything short of that will have democracy “compromised” into its opposite.
Obama is the behind-the-scenes organizer of this negotiated farce, even though he has no legal or moral right to undermine the democratic process in Honduras. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brought the parties together and chose an “objective” mediator, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias — someone who has obviously aligned himself with the United States.
And while Arias is the “official” mediator, Obama will be the one calling the shots, using U.S. economic and military clout to bully the opposing sides into an “acceptable deal.”
For example, when some members of the coup leadership were still using obstinate language against a deal with ousted President Zelaya, the U.S. finally announced it would withhold $16.5 million in military assistance to the country.
If this announcement were made the day the coup took place — as it was legally required to under U.S. law — the coup would have been crushed. Now, the money is simply being used to cajole the coup plotters into a more pliable position at the bargaining table; a place at which they obstinately refused to sit previously. It was also announced that $165 million in aide to Honduras could be in jeopardy. That is, if the coup leaders don’t do exactly as the U.S. demands.
And this highlights a stark fact that many Obama supporters are refusing to see: the origins of the coup, and indeed its resolution, lie squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. When a country [the U.S.] trains and funds another nation’s military [Honduras], while also purchasing the vast majority of that country’s exports, and supplying it with enormous financial aid, there is little ground for “equal footing.”
In fact, all of Obama’s rhetoric about leaving South America to the South Americans is a conscious ploy at public relations. In reality, the economic and military screws continue to be tightened, and U.S. foreign policy continues as it always has.
After the coup first happened, the entire world reacted with horror, condemnation, and sanctions of various kinds, while everyone understood that only one country had the economic and military influence to actually reverse it…instantly.
Obama purposely dragged his feet. He cleverly tagged the U.S. name on U.N and O.A.S resolutions, while doing absolutely nothing in the realm of guns, trade, or aid — the places where actual power is wielded.
The New York Times correctly noted that “the mixed messages have emboldened Honduras’s de facto government…” (July 7, 2009).
Also emboldening the coup leaders is Obama’s virtual silence around the fact that Honduras has been transformed into a democracy-free zone, where anti-coup media has been silenced, a military curfew enforced, basic rights suspended, and unarmed protestors killed.
Ousted President Zelaya correctly noted that “if they [the U.S.] decide to live with the coup, then democracy in the Americas is over."
This is a bold yet correct assessment of the situation in Latin America, carrying with it enormous implications. Zelaya described in vivid detail one such consequence while talking to Hillary Clinton about his kidnapping at gunpoint. He asked her, “What have Latin American presidents learned from Honduras? To sleep with our clothes on and our bags packed.”
And while media outlets treated the comment as a mere joke, the truth of it will reverberate throughout Latin America. If a military coup against a democratically elected government is not completely reversed, elites in the region will be profoundly encouraged to follow the Honduran formula and return to a time where U.S.-backed military coups and mass repression were commonplace.
And while Obama has recently repeated that President Zelaya should be returned to finish out his presidential term, Hillary Clinton “…stopped short of calling for his reinstatement, a departure from statements by President Obama earlier Tuesday…” (New York Times July 7, 2009).
This good-cop-bad-cop routine isn’t by accident, but appears to be an emerging signature of Obama’s forked tongue political method: he says what he thinks people want to hear, while others close to him pursue a different course.
It is unclear at this time what type of rotten compromise will emerge. Zelaya will either be prevented from returning to his Presidency, or as a senior U.S. official leaked to the press, “…Zelaya would be allowed to return and serve out his remaining six months in office with limited powers…” (Associated Press, July 7, 2009).
Either scenario will have democracy severely eroded, so that those who previously dominated Honduran society — the local super-wealthy and rich U.S. investors — will remain all powerful.
The average, working class Honduran, however, is acting independently. A mass march of at least 100,000 congregated at the airport last week during President Zelaya’s failed attempt to re-enter the country, a fact heavily obscured or ignored by the U.S. media.
The country’s school teachers are also jointly striking until Zelaya is returned, while talks of a general strike continue. If such a strike were successfully carried through, all the maneuvers of Obama and the native Honduran elite will have been for naught, and the unconditional return of President Zelaya will be assured.
If that were to happen, the working class would be further forced to defend democracy, by arresting all those who conspired to overthrow the democratically elected Zelaya, including any implicated members of the military, the Honduran business elite, foreign corporation representatives, and members of Congress.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Police crowd control tatics at the G20
Now Playing: The rights to protest get *Scuttled in order to *Kettle the crowds at big protests
This is a short article about the police use of "control tatics" in reference to the G20 protest and the up-coming Olympic in 2012. Scuttling the rights to protest in order to "Kettle" the crowd to surpress them. Sure seems like this discussion is much needed and years long over due.
The original article is here:
G20 protests policing 'inadequate'
Police risk losing public confidence if they do not change how they manage protests, the police watchdog has said.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O'Connor, said senior officers were too focused on dealing with disorder, and not enough on allowing peaceful protest.
Public order training and tactics were "inadequate for the modern day", he said, in his review of the G20 protests in central London on April 1.
The report found officers were too interested in whether protests were lawful or not, instead of focusing on allowing peaceful demonstrations.
Some officers policing G20 were not sufficiently aware of human rights laws, he said, and he criticised police use of containment to pen in demonstrators on the day Ian Tomlinson died, calling it "inconsistent".
Mr O'Connor called on the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to carry out a wide-ranging review of tactics and training for officers dealing with protesters.
The review should include a medical assessment of the damage done by shields and batons carried by riot police, he said.
In future, containment should be used more flexibly, and vulnerable or distressed people should be allowed out, he said.
Mr O'Connor said the changes needed to be made as soon as possible to "meet the challenges of the 21st century", and would be especially important for the Olympic Games in 2012.
The report backed the continued use of containment techniques known as "kettling". Mr O'Connor said they were useful in preventing "running riots", but he said they needed to be tempered, and officers needed to watch the crowds for signs of anyone in distress.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Friday, 3 July 2009
Strip-Search of Teenager Violated Constitutional Right
Now Playing: EPIC [firstname.lastname@example.org] releases Strip search ruling update
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
Z3 Readers this was in my email news items this afternoon - Some good news for a change
 "Strip-Search of Teenager Violated Constitutional Right"
On June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that school officials'
strip-search of a thirteen-year-old girl violated the Fourth Amendment.
Safford, Arizona school employees forced middle school student Savana Redding to disrobe during their search for an ibuprofen tablet.
Possession of such medication violates school rules, but the strip search failed to uncover a single pill. The search was conducted based on another student's allegations, and Ms. Redding alleged that it violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures.
Justice Souter, writing for the Court, held that school searches are permissible when they are "not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." However, the Court ruled that "[t]he strip search of Savana Redding was a violation of the Fourth Amendment" because "there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear." Ms. Redding's "subjective expectation of privacy against such a search" Justice Souter wrote, "is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating." Justice Thomas dissented from the decision, writing that "judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment."
A majority of the Justices also held that school officials were not liable for damages because it was not "clearly established" that their behavior was unlawful at the time of the search. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg disagreed, writing that a previous Supreme Court case made clear that the search was "excessively intrusive."
Previously, a federal appellate court held that the search in Redding was unreasonable and that a school official could be liable for violating the girl's Fourth Amendment rights. The school district and school officials appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the search was reasonable based upon the allegations and the dangers of prescription drug abuse. Additionally, they argued that the school employees must have qualified immunity in exercising their discretion so that they are free to exercise their judgment regarding drug abuse in schools and, further, without such authority, the school authorities would not have the ability to respond in the face of threats to student safety in school.
The Redding decision comes on the heels of EPIC's "Stop Digital Strip Searches" campaign, which seeks to suspend the use of "Whole Body Imaging"
-- devices that photograph American air travelers stripped naked in US airports. The body scanners subject US travelers to invasive, high-tech versions of the strip search characterized as "unconstitutional" in Redding.
The EPIC campaign responds to a policy reversal by federal officials that would make the "digital strip search" mandatory, rather than voluntary as originally announced.
Supreme Court Opinion:
Supreme Court Docket:
Oral Arguments (transcript):
EPIC's - Student Privacy:
EPIC's "Stop Digital Strip Searches" Campaign:
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Copyright & Fraud
Now Playing: Lets revamp this copyright mess
Z3-ers I found this on my RSS reader here is a quick post of the article
"This community has complained long and loudly about the very one-sided approach to copyright, and the not-so-slow erosion of the public domain. On top of the corporate lobbying to remove increasingly larger parts of the public domain, there is now an growing pattern whereby works are directly taken from the public domain and effectively stolen by a single company leveraging protections provided under copyright law. The Register's article is based on a paper by Jason Mazzone at the Brooklyn Law School, which starkly details the problems that are now becoming evident as entities grab control over public domain works. The paper proposes some possible solutions, such as amending the Copyright Act. From the abstract: 'Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free.'"
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 9:43 AM PDT
Friday, 26 June 2009
Torture Protest - Impeach Judge ByBee - Portland Oregon 6.25.09
Now Playing: STOP TORTURE - Protest Pictures from Portland
Pictures from the torture Protest in Portland Oregon on last Thursday
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:08 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 26 June 2009 11:11 PM PDT
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Fish Mercury and Right Wing Spin ...or is it spin about Selenium?
Now Playing: Consumer Freeedm news(?) story about Mercury & Selenium
The following is an email I received from a (Right Wing) environment (as if they really care) (they don't) (profits first) Any way here is the article on Mercury in fish ...and their "spin"
Now I am no expert and I am trying to get to the truth so bear with me as I explore just what the hell is going on with the mercury / fish issue
Mercury in Fish: Not So Scary After All
This just in from The Miami Herald: “Most adults need not worry” about risks associated with tiny traces of methylmercury in seafood. And researchers from the University of North Dakota announced that, thanks to a nutrient called selenium, mercury levels in fish are “not as harmful as previously thought.” Hooray! Now, let’s file all of this news away under “we told you so.”
As scientists from Harvard University and the Food and Drug Administration have been saying, the nutritional benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in fish – including healthy hearts and smarter babies – far outweigh the hypothetical risks associated with mercury. The levels of naturally-occurring methylmercury in ocean-caught fish are so tiny that you could probably eat a hundred cans of canned chunk light tuna every week for a lifetime without getting mercury poisoning. (Click here to find out for sure.)
The reason why, as scientists from the Energy & Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota are explaining this week, has a lot to do with selenium:
"Selenium is an essential nutrient in healthy brain development and protects the brain from oxidative damage," said Dr. Nick Ralston, an EERC Research Scientist involved with the studies. .. “The more selenium in the tissue, the less mercury toxicity occurs. Since fish in some areas have much higher levels of selenium than mercury, the consumer receives the healthy benefits of selenium and a natural defense against mercury."
In other words, as we put it in the title of a 2006 report, selenium is “The Flip Side of Mercury.” But overblown mercury warnings, along with a lack of public understanding about the protective effects of selenium, has had negative public health consequences since so many consumers have over-reacted by steering clear of the canned tuna aisle.
The verdict is in – again: Selenium, protein, and omega-3s in fish are your friend. Too bad we can’t say the same about seafood scaremongers.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:01 AM PDT
Updated: Friday, 26 June 2009 9:43 AM PDT
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Web Video and the demands for bandwith
Now Playing: Video on the Web ....comes with a price?
Hello friends n family of the Z3 Report ...its all about video and I have some new dirt that I found on "telephonyonline. com" regarding putting videos online ...and for what price?
Cable wins, broadcasters lose with Web video
Bernstein Research analysts study the Web video ecosystem to discern winners and losers as IP takes over
Video on the Web is clearly proliferating and attracting controversy in the technology, media and telecom space as it does. According to Bernstein Research analysts, all the players in the Internet video ecosystem – pay TV providers, media companies and Internet companies – will influence the future of Web video, but there will be winners and losers in its wake.
In a Webcast held this week, the analysts discussed the intersections between US media, the Global Internet, data networkers and cable and telecom companies. Drawing from Bernstein’s recent in-depth consumer-behavior study, the analysts found that consumers watch a lot more TV – about 309 minutes a day – than they realized and a lot less Web video – only about 2 minutes per day – than they claimed. Yet despite the low numbers, the growth rate of Internet video has been very high, said senior analyst Jeff Lindsay. NBC and Fox’s Hulu is growing at an average of 89% per year, and Google’s YouTube at 38%, and their viewers are far more diverse than the assumed teenage male segment. This rise to fame of online content aggregators has many cable and telcos fearful of video cord-cutting, a potential trend, although one that has yet to materialize.
“The single online property the cable MSOs should fear is not YouTube but Hulu,” Lindsay said on the call. “We view Hulu as the only property with the potential to drive any significant cable-cutting. A new term is already entering the internet lexicon, i.e. ‘Hulu households.’ We have yet to come across the term ‘YouTube households.’”
That being said, these global Internet companies will struggle to find profitable aggregator positions despite their success, Lindsay said, because these are already taken by the broadcasters themselves. Only five companies dominate the video landscape in the United States, according to senior analyst Michael Nathanson. How these companies, which include Viacom (NYSE: VIA-B), Disney (NYSE:DIS), NBC, Time Warner (NYSE:TWX) and News Corp. (NYSE: NWS-A-WI), respond to this online content explosion will shape the debate on Web video, he said. They – along with the Internet companies – have a vested interest in responding quickly, too, as they run the risk of being the most likely losers in the Web video scenario.
“By our math, a show like the Simpsons generates about 64 cents per user for Fox on Sunday night, as it packs in 18 commercials at a rate of about $30 per thousand viewers,” Nathanson said. “However, The Simpsons on Hulu is able to charge about double the CPM due to greater ad effectiveness, but it only has three -- that's right, three -- commercial units. As such, it's only generating about one-third of the value of the broadcast version.”
For these broadcasters to integrate more advertising into Web video runs the risk of cannibalizing their TV ad business, as the budgets are likely the same, Nathanson added. If Web usage of broadcast content does increase, content owners will have to shift to a subscription model or find a way to make ads work, he said.
The analysts concluded that the winners in the IP video movement will be data equipment suppliers like Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks and potentially even the cable and telecom pay TV providers. Even if these TV providers get relegated to a dumb pipe, revenues might decline, but costs and capital expenditures would decline even further, potentially 50%, causing free cash flow and return on investment to rise more than 30% each, according to senior analyst Craig Moffett.
Such an evolution as Moffett describes is possible, although not necessarily likely. The telcos and cablecos are interested in the evolution of Web video and won’t be satisfied being just a dumb pipe, he said. They want to shape the evolution, whereas at least one segment of their competition, satellite, will be rendered obsolete.
“They’ll make changes that protect the content companies, even if the content companies don’t try to protect themselves,” Moffett said. “But if bypass ever did happen ironically and cable was [relegated] to dumb-pipe status, it would actually be a better business than it is today -- obviously not so for the satellite operators, who are in this kind of purely broadcast distribution model. Their model would be obviously fully undermined.”
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:01 AM PDT
Newer | Latest | Older