For some closure on this.

Mr. O’Brien has said he would be willing to call in to an audio conference call, not meet in person. He is concerned about his safety. He cited his outing of a guy from a yahoo board that ended up getting in trouble, along with advice from his attorney that unnamed hedge funds may from time to time undertake a policy of intimidation that he might at some point be subject to as his reason for wanting to remain anonymous.

I’m not one of Charlie’s Angels and he isn’t Bosley. So until he meets face to face, there won’t be a meeting. I want to be able to look him in the eye and call BS if and when I hear it.

Mr. O’Brien has undertaken the strategy of responding to every comment with a response that primarily consists of, “Yes, but there is naked shorting going on, and these specific laws are being broken. If laws are being broken and there is no enforcement, how can we trust anything we know?” He then gives examples of where naked shorting was not punished.

Good for him. I hope he is able to catch some naked shorters. They are breaking the law. May they show up in a Law& Order episode.

None of this has anything to do with the operational issues of any company being discussed.

I have been asked multiple times in emails why I think NFI is a short. I will givea brief why. Since i can’t borrow it, it’s a moot discussion, but here is the quick and dirty

I think its wrong to raise money in a 2ndary to pay a dividend. Either you have money to pay the div or you don’t. 2ndaries dilute ownership and create a bigger obligation for future dividends. That’s a slippery slope, IMHO

Missing your numbers because of rising short term interest rates when it’s pretty obvious that short term rates were going to go up. Suggests there is a failure to communicate between them and the analysts.

Not asking NFI-info.net to shut down or rename itself as a way to distance itself. No action is an action in this case

There you have it.

Remember this,

Naked Shorts don’t kill good companies, good companies kill naked shorts…

ShareThis

I short stocks. I make money shorting stocks. Some of my best friends are the stocks that became worthless over the
years and I never had to cover.

I short stocks because I’m a firm believer that in a universe of more than 10k public companies, not all of them
are well operated. I also believe that since short selling is rarely if ever offered as an option by traditional
brokers to their customers, there is always going to be a bias towards demand trying to push the price of a stock up.
That in turn creates an opportunityfor short sellers who get to take advantage of that upside bias.

Of course there are risks to short selling. If you don’t fully understand what you are doing, you can lose more on
the short side since a stock can only fall to zero, but it can go up to any price. To me, that just gives me reason
to do more homework, not to shy away.

I thought this blog entry would be timely because the SEC has recently taken steps to stop abuse of the rules of
shorting. One of which is that you have to actually borrow shares before you can sell them (if you don’t know what
this means, just ask your broker). Some short sellers abused the process by giving sell orders to their brokers for
stocks they don’t own, or have not borrowed. The SEC decided to finally enforce the rule and make brokers confirm
that the shares have been borrowed and delivered. Some short sellers don’t like that this rule is being
enforced.I actually like it.

I like it because it balances the playing field. Sometimes when I, or anyone, borrow a stock in order to short it,
we have to pay a fee to borrow that stock. If a stock is heavily shorted, and as a result, difficult to borrow, the
owners of the shares will only lend them to you if you pay them some percentage of the stocks value. It may be 2 pct,
or go as high as 15 pct on an annual basis. The “VIG” becomes part of the cost of doing business. If I’m paying the
VIG because I think the companies prospects are so poor it’s worth it, then I want everyone playing by the rules.

Why? In case I’m wrong about the stock. If by chance I’m wrong (and honestly, it doesn’t happen very often), naked
shorts increase the demand for shares of stock in the company beyond what it legally should be. How can that be?
Because even naked shorts have to cover sometime. Particularly if the stock is moving up. Even though they didn’t
play by the rules, their brokers will still apply the margin rules against the short sellers accounts. If a stock
moves hard against them, they will cover. Their covering stock, moves the stock price higher, which in turn hurts my
short position.

I also want them playing by the rules in case I own a stock that is heavily shorted. Sometimes the shorts are
wrong. If the demand to short the stock is high, and I think the shorts are wrong,forcing the shorts to borrow
the stock first, can increase the demand to borrow the stock I own andpush the VIG higher. Nothing better than
owning a stock that other shorts have wrong. I can be the one charging 10 pct or more VIG , and make money on the
long side.

So mark me down as a short seller who thinks naked short selling is wrong.

That said, let me also say that when we had broadcast.com, and this would be my position if I ran a public company
today, other than making oodles of money and having lots of demand for your stock, there was and is nothing better
for the price of a stock than having it shorted. It doesn’t matter if the shares are shorted naked, or fully
borrowed. Doesn’t matter a bit.

The more shorts, the more shares shorted, the morepent up demand there is for the stock. For a company
that is well run andoperationally successful,short shares are like an insurance policy to protect the
downside for the price of your stock and more likely push the stock price ever higher.When we had broadcast.com
I used to beg people to short our stock. If they didn’t like what we were doing I would actively suggest to them that
they short the stock. Sure, it might have slowed the rise of the stock in the short term but who cared. I knew we
were going to be able to hit our numbers, so why not. If we did our jobs, it just meant they would have to cover the
stock and in a down market, that helped keep the price up and in an up market, that could cause the stock to run.
Both very good things.

Which leads to one of the things I look for when I short a stock.

The louder a company complains about the shorts, the worse the company. Companies bitching and moaning about
shorts trying to hit their stocks are companies that are far too worried about their short term stock price
andare looking for an excuse to give their shareholders.

A smart CEO is out there telling shareholders that the numbers will speak for themselves, that the company
is doing what we set out to do, and if you believe in what we are doing, buy the stock. If you don’t, you probably
shouldn’t.

A company with problems finds a reason to talk about anything but the company as a reason for the stock not doing
well. It reminds me of the music industry. They didn’t want to address what really was causing sales to fall, so they
blamed it all onthe internet and piracy. Piraphobia in their case, Shortophobia in the case of public
companies. Rule of thumb, IT’S NEVER THE SHORT SELLERS, IT’S ALWAYS THE COMPANY.

Short sellers also provide a 2nd set of eyes looking from a completely different perspective. When a short seller
called, I would always talk to them. It’s possible they know something you don’t. Maybe there is a problem with your
product or service that they have heard from one of your customers that hasn’t filtered to you. The short sellers
give you a heads up about that problem and the chance to go fix it. In essence, they are giving you a challenge and
saying, “if you can correct what we think is wrong, or explain to your shareholders that we are wrong on a certain
subject (doesnt matter if its real or made up),we are going to have to buy shares of your stock to cover our
shorts”. How in the world can that be a bad thing? If they are wrong, you tell them why. If they make something up,
you tell the truth. That simple. Then they buy your stock to cover.

So if you own a stock, and the company or other shareholders are blaming the share price on shortsellers, run
away. Quickly. You are in the wrong stock. If you are short that stock, keep on digging. There is probably a lot of
shit buried in the company books waiting to be discovered if you haven’t already.

Short Selling is an important part of the market. If you manage your own stock portfolio, not understanding how it
works is the equivalent of playing basketball and having one hand tied behind your back. You are going to be at a
huge disadvantage

*************Part 2********************** Posted Feb 26, 11:30 pm *****************************************

I want to add a part 2 in response to a post from Bob O’Brien. – Bob, you are confused and use all the terminology
of a scam artist.

Let me tell you how it really would work.

Let’s say I run a public, thinly traded company, andI think my stock is being pushed down by dirty boys
using naked shorting. Let’s also say I have a very real need for capital.

If it’s my company, and I know its a good company, be it REIT, Widget company or any other…I take avail of my
options, which are plenty.

1. If my stock price is pushed down far enough, and again, we are talking thinly traded companies that you refer
to, it will take far less money to do a buy out, interest rates are cheap. I just go to the bank, show them how
wonderful my company is, that the stock is incredibly undervalued and we take it private. The fact that there are
naked shorts make it even more attractive. You announce the deal, you watch the stock price go through the roof as
your shareholders are handsomely rewarded as the shares go north as the naked little beasts try to cover their
shorts.

2. IfI don’t want to take it private, and where your argument turns into total bullshit is that there are
private equity firms all over the country looking for deals. Undervalued stocks. They aren’t capital constrained.
They are opportunity constrained. It’s not like all the little naked short funds are the only ones that scan the
universe for thinly traded, highly shorted companies where the shorts are wrong. Me, anyone with sense, their uncles,
brothers and the funds down the street all look for these situations and salivate over them. I bring them in and ask
them to buy up the stock. They do, they make a boatload of money and so do my other shareholders

3. IfI don’t want to do a secondary because my stock is low, rightfully or wrongfully,I go to the bank
and borrow money. Banks give lines of credits based on operating performance of the company. Sure a higher stock
price can let you get a little lower interest rate, but it won’t make the difference as to whether you qualify for
the loan or not. The capital is out there for companies with strong performance.

I know you are active with NFI. It has a market cap (according to Yahoo) of 907mm dollars before debt. With all
that cash they supposedly generate why haven’t they gone to their local bank and or private equity fund and borrowed
the money to take the company private?

Just what they pay in dividends could easily cover principle and interest on a Billion Dollars or 1.5B or more in
a buyout price. PLUS, if there as many naked shorts as you say, in addition to the real shorts, that price would run
so high, so fast, you guys would make a killing. The only problem with this approach, is that a bank cares about real
operating earnings. If they are there, it’s an easy deal. If they aren’t and if the company doesn’t do it, some
Warren Buffet wannabe will, if its a real company with real value.

Wasn’t Kmart a heavily shorted stock? The value was there, a smart buyer recognized it and the stock went to the
moon, rewarding all those who believed, and crushing those that didn’t. That’s what happens when real companies have
depressed stock prices.

Like I said, if there is value in NFI or any company to the degree that you and others say, then where are the
funds with billions, or those with a couple hundred million and good credit, coming in and buying the company
outright? With all the naked shorts and legit short positions out there, everyone and their brother who believed in
the company would make far more than they would if the naked shorts just disappeared.

I wanted a reason to buy shares in NFI. I could get a dividend, I could lend the shares to a shortseller and make
more than 10 pct. Between the two, you would think its easy money. I even looked at buying puts, to protect my long
position, but the puts were SOOOOO expensive, it wasn’t worth it. When I did my homework, everything about this
company scared the shit out of me. There were red flags every step, the biggest of which was your NFI website and all
the talk about how the shorts are hurting the company.

Now, I wish I could short the stock, but it’s impossible to borrow.

So Bob O’Brien, I just gave you several ways that your friends at NFI can protect the interests of their
shareholders…let see what they do.

For anyone else out there reading, when a company complains about shorts, run as fast as you can to sell the
stock.

ShareThis

A couple years ago CBS threatened to pull the plug on High Def programming if the FCC didn’t push forward rules supporting the Broadcast Flag.

For those that don’t know, the Broadcast Flag is basically a digital switch that over the air broadcasters, the major broadcast networks, can set to potentially prevent viewers from recording their broadcasts. If they don’t want you copying their show to your Tivo/PVR hard drive, the switch could prevent it. Or they could set it so you could copy it one time, but not make any further copies.

When CBS made their threat, an argument could have been made that their content was needed to help speed up the adoption of HDTV. Back then, the HDTVs were more expensive, and if CBS stopped broadcasting in HD, it could have given potential buyers a reason not to buy a new HDTV.

Now the momentum has flipped. The HDTV cat is out of the bag. It’s not that the majority of homes have high def sets, they don’t and won’t for a good 5 years. However, the number of people who do have HDTVs LOVE THEM. When you have millions and millions of consumers who have paid their hard earned money for a product they love, the only thing that would happenif a network broadcaster pulled the plug on their HD feeds is that their would be a switchboard meltdown at that broadcaster and the number of complaints the FCC would get would dwarf the Janet Jackson response.

That’s on the national level.

On the local level, forgettaboutit. Every affiliate of that broadcaster would go through living hell. There are still a lot of HD viewers that get their signal from over the air feeds. These are the most outspoken consumers who call and give grief to an affiliate when a show is upconverted rather than shown in true HD. If a show isn’t shown at all in HD, the phones ring longer and the emails come quicker. If it’s a major event, it’s not suprising for the local station general manager to get threats of bodily harm. I can’t even imagine the hell that Fox affiliates that didn’t carry the SuperBowl went through from their viewers.

I’m telling you, there is no chance that the national network broadcasters pull back from HD. Their affiliates would revolt, side by side with their viewers in enough numbers, and with a loud enough voice, that the pain would last a long time.

But lets just say, for the sake of example that one of the network broadcasters did stop broadcasting in HD. They could do it in one of two ways. They could stop all of their broadcasting, which I don’t think they are stupid enough to do, or they could seperate their broadcasts. They could offer an HD feed to the cable and satellite distributors they already have HD deals with, and then offer only a low definition feed for over the air broadcasts.

The irony of the impact should make the FCC smile, if not blush.

By offering HD feeds only to cable and satellite, it would push viewers who had previously relied on antennas, but were buying a new HDTV (for those that don’t know, you can buy a 27″ HDTV ready set for under 300 dollars and falling now), or thatalready had an HDTV, towards signing up with an HD sat or cable provider for not just their HDTV, but also to support their analog TVs.

Anything that transitions TVs from receiving signalsover the air, via antenna reception to utilizing a digital cable or satellite box, pushs the analog to digital transition one baby step closer.

So if one of the networks threatensto pull their HD signal because of the broadcast flag…call their bluff.

The same applies to the Movie Industry. MPAA has been quoted as saying that “without the flag, high value content would migrate to where it could be protected.” Yeah right. Just like the music industry switched their content back from CDs to cassette tapes and LPs. I haven’t seen a movement on the part of the music industry to switch from DVDs and their digital image back to VHS… “where it could be protected”. The movie business complained about DVDs and threatened to not support them…until they started making more money from DVDs than theatrical release.

Protect the MPAA members from themselves and theirlies. It’s all BS. Call their bluff.

We don’t need the broacast flag. It accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to set a precedent that the content industry can intimidate the FCC.

That said, although the broadcast flag is bad for consumers in every possible way, it would be great for my content businesses. HDNet Films, 2929 Entertainment, Rysher Entertainment, The Dallas Mavericks, HDNet Productions, www.hd.net, every single content entity I have would benefit from the broadcast flag. Not because it would protect content, it wouldnt. Content doesnt needany special protections. There are enough laws on the books regarding theft that no special content laws are needed.

They all would benefit because we wouldn’t use the broadcast flag. While the big networks would create confusion and anger with their customers, our businesses could be the knight in shining armour and provide content in exactly the means consumers want it, unencumbered and available to watch, where and how they like.

Before I sign off, and since I’m high on the soap box, since I’ve touched on the subject of the analog to digital transition, let me make one point there that I think is being overlooked.

THe value of reclaiming the analog spectrum is not just in the 25 Billion dollars or more that could go into the government treasury from its sale, but also in the bandwidth that is freed up at cable MSOs. Most cable providers have nearly 80 analog channels chewing up their valuable bandwidth. AT approximately 38mbs PER CHANNEL, that’s nearly 3 Gigabytes of bandwidth that can be freed up to be used for digital applications. Those applications could be not only HD channels, but just as importantly, bandwidth for broadband connections. Free up 3GBs and you could see the bandwidth available to your house expand to unheard of levels.

So the transition from analog to digital tv is not just about television, it’s as much about expanding the broadband opportunities to every home passed by cable. That’s good for all of us.

ShareThis

I’ve never lost a billion dollars.

It’s not easy to lose a billion dollars. It’s even harder for an individual to lose $1,000,000,000.00

Sure, there have been moves made by individuals that have cost more than a billion in stockmarket value, but how many canactually stand up and shout to the world that they let aBILLION DOLLARS in cash disappear into thin air?

I couldn’tname one off the top of my head that has lost cash money of 1 billion dollars or more, until today.

Congratulations Bob Goodenow, President of the NHL Players Association. You turned down 30 teams paying what would probably average out to 35mm dollars in salary per team for this year. That’s more than $ 1,000,000,000.00 in cash that would have been paid to NHL players this year.

That’s 1 Billion dollars that NHL players will never, ever, ever collect. Because of you. That puts you in rarified air. All you had to do was come off your high and mighty no salary cap horse in July rather than February

What’s ironic is that aBillion dollars is more than NHL teams will earn collectively over the next 25 years, under any deal.

The good news is that the NHL stuck toits guns. A strong financial foundation will make the league more viable in the short and long term. That will benefit NHL players far more than anything the NHLPA has done. Why was it so tough for Goodenow to realize that businesses that are at least breaking even can pay more money to more employees than businesses that are losing money?

In spite of Goodenow, the NHLs strength of conviction means that kids around the worldwho are putting their heartsand souls into hockey with dreams of playing in the NHL can rest easy. The NHL didn’t cave. They will survive.

People think the milestone to come out of this lockout was the first cancellation of a season. It wasn’t. That was a breakthrough.

The milestone was that Bob Goodenow joined a very exclusive club of people who have lost a billion dollars. Cash. That would have belonged to guys he probably calls his friends. Or at least used to.

Here’s hoping that the NHL players realize just how badly he abusedthem and make a quick change to save some of that money he lost for them.

I’m re-upping my Dallas Stars season tickets and if it comes to it, I will enjoy watching replacement players as much at the American Airlines Center as I did watching the Cowboys with replacement players in Texas Stadium.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come tothat andthe players realize that they should be the ones working and getting paid, not Bob Goodenow

ShareThis

They lurk in the bushes. They camp out in cars. They roam the sidewalks. Camera in hand. A-List celebrities know they are there. They know they are waiting for a moment of weakness. Just a glimpse that they are human, or not quite as glamorous as their publicists present them. When that moment strikes anywhere outside their home, I know they gulp hard, hoping not to hear the sound, or see the burst of a camera flash.

When it happens, there is a price to be paid. The celebrity has to deal with the price of any consequence. The photographer gets paid the price commensurate with the popularity and interest in the star, and the vulnerability captured in the picture.

In the world of political blogging, bloggers are the new paparazzi and the traditional news media reporters and columnists are the new targets.

There have been millions upon millions of blog entries. I know at www.icerocket.com, we have indexed at least 6mm pages ofblogs. I don’t know the number of political bloggers, or the number of pages posted, but I can tell you this, every single one of them with any aspirations of popularity is looking for a way to stand out. The way that happens is to knock one of the gatekeepers off their perch.

Whether it’s been newspapers, magazines, TV or radio, the opportunities to reach an audience has been limited to a finite number of local and national gatekeepers. Just outside those gates, knocking on the door, trying to be heard for the past 100 or more years have been wanna be Woodward and Bernsteins. People with information, ideas and concepts that they know the populace would respond to have been turned away, again and again.

Its payback time . The bloggers are here, and they are ready to knock down the gates and get their pound of flesh. The traditional media has no idea what is about to hit them.

In every major conference, at every major speech, sitting at tables in restaurants, there is going to be a blogger or podcaster with microphone, PDA, Videophone, laptop or paper and pencil in hand. Listening. Taking notes. That information is going to be transmitted to and from a blog entry and placed in the hands of “the readers”.

Unlike celebrities who hear or see the flash of the camera, the gatekeepers don’t know they are there. Blogging in plain site. Questioning everything.

Dan Rather and Eason Jordan were just practice laps. Let me assure you that from now on, EVERYTHING said. Every video shown. Every picture presented from any traditional media source is going to be scrutinized. The level of scrutiny will make your editors blush.

The gatekeepers are under attack. I’m not saying its right or wrong, but it is the new reality.

Fortunately, there is a way to deal with the paparazzi. There is also a way for the gatekeepers to deal with the bloggers. A simple way.

Recognize them. Give them respect. Celebrities can’t keep photographers out of their bushes no matter how hard they try. The gatekeepers won’t be able to keep the bloggers out either. Instead they should invite them in.

Not 1. Not 2. But several from both sides. Bring in the more popular blogs that like you, and the same number of those that don’t. Give them as much access as you give the NY Times, Wash Post. Don’t muzzle them, let them write

I will tell you exactly what will happen next. The blogs you invite in will still try to trip you up, but they will quickly morph and act like traditional media. When you screw up , they will tell you when it happens and give you a chance to comment and respond. They will like being on theinside and adjust to try to stay there.

The bloggers left on the outside will continue to try to trip you up, but will spend more time and energytrying to tear down the bloggers who got inside the gates. Jealousy is a bitch.

It will work, try it.

If you don’t, call George Clooney and Britney Spears Federline for advice. You are going to need it

m

ShareThis

Whenever there is a missed call by an official, some TV announcer will say something to the effect of…”they didn’t get that one, but it all evens out over the course of the season”.

Well I have news for everyone. It doesn’t even out.

Players make mistakes and cost their teams games. Officials make mistakes and cost teams games. That’s just the reality of basketball. If a player can make, or not make a play that impacts the final outcome of a game, we have to realize that so can officials.

Officials create turnovers. A traveling, 3 seconds, or palming call made or not made. A change of position opportunity. Given or taken away.

Officials create points. A goaltending call made, or free throws given.

A technical called vs an official just walking away.

If you just look at yesterday’s games, a player got ejected with 43 points and the lead. His team loses.

A coach gets ejected with 3 seconds left in a 2 point game, over a call he thought should have been made.

A team has no calls on what they thought should have been goaltending in the final seconds of two consecutive games.

And that’s just last night.

There are about60 to 70 “call opportunities” each and every game. You can assign your own percentage of calls that are made that are right or wrong, but no matter what percentage you pick, the number of incorrect calls across the course of a season adds up.

If that number, and I’m just using easy math to make a point, is 500 missed callsper team per season. What are the chances that 250 of the missed calls went in favor of that team, and 250 went against? What are the chances of it working out that way for 30 teams across the league?

Almost impossible.

In a given game, if there are 10 missed calls, and 5 happen to create turnovers for your team, and the 5 other missed calls happen to create foul shots for the other team, that’s 5 turnovers and at least 5 free throws they shouldn’t have had in a single game. Think that might impact the outcome of the game?

Bottom line is that games, playoff positions and jobs are critically impacted by players. They are impacted by coaches. They are also impacted by officials.

The purpose in writing this isn’t to criticize anyone. It’s purely to make two simple points…

1. Officiating is a critically important part of any game. Every official I know busts his or her ass to do their best job every night. The NBA works hard to put the officials in a position to succeed. The league knows how important their job is to the outcome of a game. Now hopefully the media will as well.

2. Missed calls don’t balance out for teams over the course of a season. There are going to be teams that are going to feel like they can’t get a break and are snakebit with bad calls…

…and they just may be right.

ShareThis

I have gotten quite a bit of interesting feedback on this topic and have also seen some wonderful discussion on various discussion lists, including one of my favorites, the PHO list.

Rather than just letting this fall away,I thought I would add some more ….

Does P2P help or hurt content sales?

The problem with all of this conjecture about value of P2P is that it only considers today’s applications and there is not real quantitive information about the impact on sales today, only anecdotal information. Did anyone see the NYTimes article the other day where the movie industry wouldn’t even release their international sales? Makes it tough to quantify whether sales have been negatively impacted if there arent any published international numbers.

I think there are more legal music downloads than illegal

No question that music and movies are the most visible content distributed by P2P. Do we know if on an absolute basis most of that music in particular is illegally distributed? No we don’t. It’s very conceivable that there are far more personal, vanity projects and independent projects that are being offered on the net than charting music.

It’s also probable that the most popular music that is being downloaded is being downloaded illegally. But has anyone done any analysis of the long tail vs the most popular titles?

Chris Anderson of Wired has written brilliantly about the bellcurve of content and information distribution on the net. That popular items are just that, popular. My guess however is thatin absolutenumbers, the long tail of thedownload distribution curves, both in terms of number of songs , and in number of songs downloaded, overwhelm the number of copyrighted songs illegally being downloaded.

How many songs are in the catalogs of the RIAA memberlabels vs the number of songs on all the indie music sites on the net? Anyone have an idea? How many self-publishing artists and bands are there offering downloads? Want to bet A < B+C?

That’s today. Killing the golden goose of progress is what scares me more than anything about all of this P2P hating.

What about future applications? What applications or technology will be aborted before their time if the entertainment industry has their way?

1 megapixel cameras have turned into 7 megapixel cameras, whichwill turn into 10 megapixel cameras. DV cameras will turn into HDV then HDCam Cameras. All have ever increasing bandwidth and storage requirements. All have business and personal applications. All benefit significantly from bit torrent type P2P applications.

With broadband to the home getting to 10mbs, and hopefully beyond as competition heats up between cable and telcos, is it inconceivable that we would want to setup a password protected bit torrent network so we can share our hospitalXrays with specialists, and then store them in an XDrive like application so we can retain access to our own medical histories?

Is it inconcievable that we at somepoint in the future want to submit anonymously the list and dosages of medication we are taking along with high resolution Xrays and pictures that are distributed to systems that analyze the mix looking for red flags that are then reviewed by physicians and returned, still anonymously back to us? This type of application can’t happen in a typical client server environment. Peer to Peer is a foundation for this type of application.

High Resolution of High Def and new gen cameras will open up new applications in healthcare, business and home use. The bandwidth and storage requirements of these applications will swamp the broadband lines using traditional server/client distribution. P2P/Bit Torrent applications can be the model for efficient enabling of these appications.

Then there are the benefits to mobile applications. Spectrum is expensive in this country. We still have not reached the point where 3G or faster networks are widely enabled, and even they are very limited in bandwidth. P2P applications to distribute videos or pictures we take on our phones to our buddy lists or families will save valuable bandwidth.

The ability for emergency relief workers to distribute videos of instructions on how to deal with a situation will be an invaluable application. In a car wreck and need instructions on how to apply a bandage or worse? Over the next 10 years 911 will be able to distribute a video with instructions to you and those around you and talk you through it. P2P is the most bandwidth effective distribution solution.

You can let your entrepreneurial imagination run wild on the types of applications that can be enabled with efficient bandwidth applications in a mobile environment.

Why would the supreme court even consider eliminating these opportunities?

I think we have forgotten that EVERY SINGLE BOOK, PICTURE and MOVIE that exists today, and has ever existed to this point in the 230 year historyof this country will at one point bein the public domain. Owned, shared and enjoyed by the citizens of this country. From this day forward, the ability to generate digital content will be ever simplified and made less expensive. The amount of digital content created going forward will expand exponentially.

It is the job of the Supreme Court toprotect our ability to share, distribute and enjoy everysingle digital bit of it. That obligation in and of itself is enough of a non infringing use of P2P for it be protected forever.

Do we want to kill off applications that could change our lives for the better to give the music and movie industries control over the technology ?

Do we want to set a precedent that shrinkage in an industry is enough to kill off technological innovation? Should we ban pants with pockets to prevent shoplifting?

There is no question that there are substantial non infringing applications. These are things that I came up with off the top of my head. I’m sure there are much smarter people that can come up with much better. Hopefully come March 29th,good sense will prevail.

ShareThis

No, I’m not hiring.

I do get hundreds of resumes and emails asking me for advice in finding a job. Most common is from someone who wants a job in sports, and they want to know the best way to get there.

Well here you go.

1. Don’t major in Sports Marketing

IMHO, every one of the Sports Marketing Programs, or the derivatives there of, are a HUGE waste of time and resources. It’s the 2000’s version of rocks for jocks or majoring in Phys Ed. Can’t think of what you want to major in… working in sports sounds like a blast… so lets pick Sports Marketing.

I know that’s not completely fair to everyone. That’s its a broad generalization, but from this end, it sure seems that way.

Let me let all Sports Marketing majors in on a secret. There is nothing at all special or different about running, managing, or working in a sports organization. It runs the exact same way as any company that sells widgets, service or entertainment of any kind.

If you really want to work for a sports organization, get as broad based a business education as you possibly can. Finance, accounting, sales, more sales, more sales, management, etc. The better the understanding you have of our customers and how they work, the better value you will be able to provide to the sports organization. To repeat, it’s more important to know how our customers’ businesses operate than how the sports business operates

What we do is easy.

2. If you can sell, you can get a job – anywhere, anytime

WhenI was growing up I was told over and over again, if you can sell, you can always get a job. Of course, I was told that after a friend of my moms’ told me when I was in highschool, that I should also have a trade to fall back on. He tried to teach me how to lay carpet. My first, last and only experience was working for him and watching him shake his head and rip out whatI had done…. But I digress

I don’t remember who told me that selling was a job for a lifetime, but they were right.

If you can sell, you can find a job in sports. I will take a high school dropout who is caring, involved and can sell overan MBA in sports management almost everytime.

What makes a good salesperson?

Let me be clear that it’s not the person who can talk someone into anything. It’s not the hustler who is a smooth talker. The best salespeople are the ones who put themselves in their customer’s shoes and provide a solution that makes the customer happy.

The best salesperson is the one the customer trusts and never has to question.

The best salesperson is the one who knows that with every cold call made, they are closer to helping someone.

The best salesperson is the one who takes immense satisfaction from the satisfaction their customer gets.

The best salesperson is the one who wakes up early every morning excited to come to the office and get on the phone and let people know exactly why they love their product, their job and their clients

Sound corny? It is. It’s also very simple.

It’s also the most important job in every company. There has yet to be a successful company that has survived with zero sales.

So if selling is the most important job in a company, why do fewer and fewer people seem to be wanting the job?

Why aren’t their many colleges offering majors in “Salesmanship”, not Sales and Marketing. Just pure, old fashioned selling?

If you don’t have a job, or don’t have the job you want, get a job in sales. Every single person on this planet can learn to be a great salesperson. All you have to do is put in the effort and care about your company, your prospects and customers.

Once you excel at selling, getting a job in sports is easy. But then again, if you are good, I’m sure the company you work for is going to do everything they can to keep you.

One last self serving footnote. Please don’t send me emails telling me how great a salesperson you are, looking for a job. We post all of our jobs on the Mavs and HDNet websites. If there is an opening, feel free to apply. Good luck!

ShareThis