This time the target is Cotendo, a company that uses a network of 30 data centers distributed around the world to put video content physically closer to consumers, and thus speed up delivery, especially to mobile devices. The acquirer is Internet concern Akamai, which says it will pay $268 million, plus the assumption of unvested options.

Cotendo had been reported to be the subject of a bidding war between Akamai and rival Juniper Networks. Breathless reports at the time, sourced to enthusiastic Israeli newspapers, valued Cotendo as high as $350 million. The deal will close during the first half of 2012.

Even at the lower price, the deal marks a nice exit for several U.S.-based venture capital funds. Cotendo raised $7 million from Sequoia Capital and Benchmark Capital in 2009, and then another $12 million in a round joined by Tenaya Capital last year. In June, it took a $17 million strategic investment from Juniper and Citrix Systems.

Cotendo had grown into an Akamai competitor, with a reputation for being faster at some things than Akamai, and also cheaper to boot. That made it an obvious Akamai target, given its history of acquiring rivals — usually after suing them. In 2005, it took out Speedera Networks for $130 million, after a contentious patent lawsuit between them. Akamai had sued Cotendo last November. So the next time Akamai sues someone, set your stopwatch, because the defendant may be the next one to be acquired.

Akamai’s statement on the deal is below:

Akamai to Acquire Cotendo

Combined technology and teams expected to help accelerate pace of innovation in cloud and mobile optimization

CAMBRIDGE, MA and SUNNYVALE, CA – December 22, 2011 – Akamai Technologies, Inc. and Cotendo announced today that the two companies have signed a definitive agreement for Akamai to acquire Cotendo.

Helping to mitigate the challenges of operating in a hyperconnected world, Akamai provides a secure platform over which businesses can engage users across the Web, mobile, cloud, or a mix of public and private network environments. Cotendo offers an integrated suite of Web and mobile acceleration services. The combination of the two companies’ technologies and teams is expected to increase the pace of innovation in the areas of cloud and mobile optimization.

“As we look to accelerate growth across the dynamic landscapes of cloud and mobile optimization, we are excited to be joining forces with Cotendo,” said Paul Sagan, president and CEO of Akamai. “Cotendo’s technology, partnerships and people are a strong complement to Akamai. Together, we believe there is tremendous opportunity for our combined technologies as enterprises embrace the move to the cloud and seek solutions for an increasingly mobile world.”

“The Cotendo team is very proud of our accomplishments in delivering proven and effective solutions for accelerating Web and mobile assets. By combining our innovative technology and employees with Akamai, we expect our customers and partners will gain access to a comprehensive, global platform and wider portfolio of leading-edge services supported by some of the most experienced providers in the industry,” said Ronni Zehavi, CEO and co-founder of Cotendo. “We look forward to working with Akamai in an effort to create the strongest offering in the industry.”

Founded in 2008, Cotendo is headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA, with a technology center in Israel. Cotendo currently has approximately 100 employees, with over 50 based in Israel.

Under terms of the agreement, Akamai will acquire all of the outstanding equity of Cotendo in exchange for a net cash payment of approximately $268 million, after expected purchase price adjustments, plus the assumption of outstanding unvested options to purchase Cotendo common stock. The closing of the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, is expected to occur in the first half of 2012.

The thing is, IBM is been acquiring mid-sized companies at a pretty steady clip. The biggest deal IBM has done in recent memory is the $1.7 billion acquisition last summer of Netezza. Then for dessert it nabbed Blade Systems the following month for an undisclosed amount. Since then it has done five deals, the largest and most recent of which was the $387 million acquisition of Algorithmics, a Canadian risk analytics firm.

All told, IBM bought 15 companies in 2010, but has bought only three so far this year. It has bought 50 since 2006, suggesting it could easily step up its deal-making pace before the end of the year. And with nearly $12 billion in cash on the balance sheet it could do so without breaking much of a sweat.

But as Mills told Bloomberg, there’s always got to be a good reason to buy a company. “Everything’s got to fit … No spurious, off-to-the-side, unrelated things.” Somehow I can’t help but think that’s a slap at Hewlett-Packard, whose acquisitions of late, have been, well, a tad controversial. But public slap fights aren’t IBM’s style, so maybe I’m reading too much into it.

IBM has a big goal to meet, and it can’t get there without making acquisitions: It wants to add another $20 billion in annual revenue by 2015. It recently hit a significant milepost along the way: Its market capitalization eclipsed that of Microsoft last week. As of yesterday, IBM was worth $207 billion to Microsoft’s $205.5 billion.

Rather than become an HP executive, Autonomy CEO Mike Lynch, who’s been described as Britain’s first software billionaire, will remain head of Autonomy, which HP will operate as a wholly owned subsidiary, though he will report to Whitman.

Of course, the deal didn’t get done without some drama — what does get done at HP without drama these days? First there was the shock at the price paid, which represented a 64 percent premium over Autonomy’s share price. It was just one of the things that led to a shareholder lawsuit against HP.

There were certainly enough questions about the deal to cause some speculation around the notion that HP might try to back out of it. Those ideas gained some currency when HP’s board of directors fired former CEO Léo Apotheker, but not before giving him a pricey exit package.

Then there was the Oracle shopping scandal. Asked about Oracle’s position in the unstructured data market two weeks ago, CEO Larry Ellison said that his company had passed on a chance to acquire Autonomy because the price was too high. Lynch, apparently falling into a PR trap laid by Oracle, took issue with Ellison, saying Autonomy had never been shopped to Oracle, prompting Oracle to publicly call Lynch a liar, then produce a set of PowerPoint slides as evidence. Lynch then went on to blame his eager banker, Frank Quattrone. Of course, it was widely known that Autonomy had been quietly shopped around for months.

So that little kerfuffle is over, now that HP is in control and its corporate communications team, led by Lynn Anderson, is in charge.

Meanwhile, there’s the larger mission to worry about: HP has to prove that Autonomy was worth all that money, and there’s an awful lot at stake. HP shares are still trading near their lowest levels in six years, and closed today at $22.20, down 25 cents. According to the disputed slides prepared by Qatalyst partners that were shared at one time or another with Oracle, Autonomy is expected to bring in $1.1 billion in revenue next year, which would amount to less than 1 percent of HP’s forward revenue projection for 2012 of $127 billion. It’s going to be tough to make it pay. But like it or not, HP is stuck with it now.

As reported in March around the time the merger was first proposed, T-Mobile, a division of Deutsche Telekom, stands to gain about $3 billion in break-up fees should the deal fail to close. AT&T would also give T-Mobile certain wireless spectrum that’s not needed for the rollout of its next-generation wireless network.

While AT&T has said it plans to fight the action in court, the sudden move by the Justice Department and the fact that the Federal Communications Commission — which would also have to sign off on the deal — has yet to weigh in on it, make it extremely unlikely that the merger will ever be consummated, says James Ratcliffe, a telecom analyst with Barclays Capital in a note to clients today. He points out that, historically, when they challenge mergers in court, the agencies tend to win about 60 percent of the time.

“We believe that the deal is by no means dead, as the DOJ has stated that the ‘door is open’ for AT&T to propose remedies, but the fact that the DOJ took this strong step this early in the process makes the probability of completion much lower,” he wrote. “We now view the probability of success at 35-40%, down from our previous 75% view.”

One of the primary arguments in the complaint (the original filing is embedded below via Scribd) focuses on government and enterprise customers. Where critics of the deal would charge that the only notable competitors to AT&T and T-Mobile are Sprint and Verizon Wireless, AT&T management would rebut that Leap and MetroPCS are also players. The DOJ complaint discounts that argument, especially with regard to business and government customers. Leap and MetroPCS are really regional players, the DOJ says, and so corporations and government agencies with many offices around the country can only realistically consider national carriers, the number of which would be reduced to three were the deal approved.

“T-Mobile makes its presence felt competing head to head with AT&T and other carriers for a number of accounts, winning business in some cases and often pushing prices lower when it does not,” the DOJ’s complaint reads. “The merger’s elimination of T-Mobile as an aggressive competitor would likely result in fewer choices and higher prices for enterprise and government customers.”

And while the DOJ has drawn its legal line in the sand, it’s not the only agency yet to be heard from. The Federal Communications Commission would also have to sign off on the deal for it to be approved. Its chairman, Julius Genachowski, issued a carefully worded statement that gives a strong hint that it will ultimately oppose the merger. “Competition is an essential component of the FCC’s statutory public interest analysis, and although our process is not complete, the record before this agency also raises serious concerns about the impact of the proposed transaction on competition,” Genachowski said.

In a conference call with reporters today, Harold Feld, the legal director of PublicKnowledge, a telecom advocacy group that has opposed the merger, speculated that the FCC will likely send the matter to an administrative law hearing, which he called “the kiss of death” for mergers. “By the time that procedure would be finished, T-Mobile would have taken its breakup fee and gone and built an entirely new network,” he said.

So on what legal basis might AT&T and T-Mobile fight the case? The DOJ is using some new market analysis techniques that haven’t been used in antitrust cases before, says Barclays’s Ratcliffe. “Traditionally, the DOJ has used regional impact analysis to study the impact of wireless mergers, and it does so here again,” he writes. “In addition, however, the DOJ is also viewing the market as being national, a comparatively new approach, which might be more open to challenge in the courts.”

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson has promised to fight it, and continued to argue that the deal will bring real benefits to spectrum management nationwide, and create jobs. Deutsche Telekom said it will join the fight, too.

Justice-ATT-TMobile-Complaint

The two parties were negotiating the final agreement Sunday and a deal could be announced as early as Monday, the people said.

The deal would join two of the 10 largest U.S. cable operators by subscribers, continuing consolidation in a business facing competition for TV subscribers from satellite operators and telecommunications companies, as well as Internet-based upstarts.

href=”http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576508940634540716.html?mod=WSJ_qtoverview_wsjlatest”>Read the rest of this post on the original site »

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission and attorney general Tuesday, Franken said the deal would lead to “an effective duopoly” in the national wireless market and inevitably lead to both higher prices and job losses.

“My examination of this transaction has led me to conclude that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would substantially lessen competition in the already highly concentrated wireless communications market,” Franken said in the filing. “In addition to my antitrust concerns, I am convinced that this type of horizontal consolidation does not serve the public interest.”

Franken’s objections follow that of Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, who went public with his opposition to the deal last week.

The deal needs the blessing of both the FCC and the Department of Justice. Sprint has vocally opposed the deal, along with a handful of public interest groups and smaller carriers, while AT&T has won backing from a number of high-tech firms, labor groups and others. AT&T said in its earnings call last week that it remains confident it will win approval for the deal.

The New York-based firm of Bursor & Fisher law firm filed a 236-page arbitration demand on Thursday, alleging that the proposed deal would harm competition in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Although the deal already requires approval from the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission, the law firm is seeking to represent individual AT&T customers who want to bring their own legal challenges to the deal.

“Government enforcement is an important part of the antitrust laws, but the Clayton Act also permits private parties who may be adversely affected to challenge a proposed merger,” attorney Scott Bursor said in a statement. “That means any AT&T cellphone, data or iPad customer who will suffer higher prices and diminished service because of this merger can sue to stop it from happening.”

The firm, which has set up a Web site arguing its case, said it plans to file additional arbitration cases on Friday, with hopes of filing hundreds of such cases. AT&T’s standard contract terms prevent class-action suits but allow for disputes to be brought up for arbitration, at AT&T’s expense.

In an interview, Bursor talked about how that could help in this case.

“If we bring 100 cases and we lose 99 of them we are going to win,” Bursor told AllThingsD. “We just need one arbitrator to say, ‘Wait a minute, this merger is going to hurt competition.’”

Bursor and his firm have been involved in other consumer suits against the wireless industry, including a class-action suit against Sprint Nextel over its early termination fees and another dispute with AT&T over the locking of handsets.

An AT&T representative was not immediately available for comment.

AT&T has lined up backing from a number of governors and other elected officials, as well as high-tech firms, labor and other groups; meanwhile, Sprint has been fighting the deal, along with several consumer groups and smaller wireless carriers. This week, Senator Herb Kohl, a top democrat on antitrust matters, called on the federal government to block the deal.

In its earnings call on Thursday, AT&T said it remains confident the deal will win approval and close in the first quarter of next year, despite the objections.

Here’s the memo to staff from T-Mobile CEO Phillip Humm (which we should note was posted earlier on Sunday by newly formed Seattle-area tech site GeekWire). And for more, check out Mobilized’s just-published interview with AT&T executive Ralph De La Vega offering his take on the deal.

Dear colleagues,

I write to you over the weekend with important news. Today we announced the beginning of a new journey for T-Mobile USA. AT&T and Deutsche Telekom have reached an agreement for AT&T to acquire T-Mobile USA, positioning the combined company to create a world-class platform for mobile broadband innovation and growth. Deutsche Telekom will become the largest shareholder of AT&T.

The sale of T-Mobile USA to AT&T is the best possible solution for our business and for our customers. The merger will ensure the deployment of a robust 4G network to 95% of the U.S. population, something neither company could achieve on its own. Also, because of our compatible networks and spectrum, the customers of T-Mobile USA and AT&T will experience improved voice and data service almost immediately after the networks are integrated.

Additional details about this transaction are included in a press release attached to this e-mail.

I know this news is unexpected and may be somewhat unsettling, but I am confident that our strong culture and T-Mobile USA Values will help guide us through this process.

Bringing together these two world-class businesses will create significant benefits for our customers. T-Mobile is a wonderful business, with great employees who have always demonstrated a willingness to do what it takes to be successful. Frankly, that is exactly why AT&T expressed an interest in combining our organization with theirs.

AT&T has a proven track record of growing through successful integrations. Their leaders recognize that making this combination a success will require the talent and commitment of T-Mobile USA employees. I believe you will see that reflected in their statements and their actions. In fact, AT&T’s leadership has said keeping our talented people through this transition is one of their top priorities.

It is important to keep in mind that this transaction requires regulatory approval from government agencies; until that time we remain T-Mobile USA and must continue to operate independently. It is expected that this deal will close within 12 months. With that in mind, I ask that each of you remain focused on the outstanding work you do every day to meet and exceed our customers’ expectations.

I ask you to join me in embracing this new opportunity to build America’s premier mobile broadband company. In the meantime, continue to execute our Challenger strategy – there‘s a lot of work to do in the year ahead.

I promise to make more information available to you in the coming days and weeks on OneVoice and through your leaders.

Thank you for your ongoing commitment and support.

With sincere appreciation,

Philipp Humm
CEO & President
T-Mobile USA

More Coverage

• AT&T Wraps Self in Flag, Says T-Mobile Deal Essential to U.S. Competitiveness
• The AT&Terminator: Rise of Ma Bell
• Sprint: AT&T’s T-Mobile Buy Would “Dramatically Alter” Market
• First Casualty of AT&T Deal: T-Mobile Drops From CTIA Panel
• What AT&T Owes T-Mobile if Deal Doesn’t Go Through
• T-Mobile USA: No, We’re Not Getting the iPhone Yet
• T-Mobile’s Memo to Staff on the AT&T Deal
• AT&T’s President on Why T-Mobile Deal Should Pass Muster and Won’t be a Customer Nightmare
• T-Mobile: We Were Totally Kidding About AT&T’s Crappy Network!
• AT&T Agrees to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

Here is an edited transcript of our conversation.

How did this deal come about and why does it make sense?

De La Vega: The first thing is, this deal alleviates the impending spectrum exhaust challenges that both companies face. By combining the spectrum holdings that we have, which are complementary, it really helps both companies.

Second, just like we did with the old AT&T Wireless merger, when we combine both networks what we are going to have is more network capacity and better quality as the density of the network grid increases.

In major urban areas, whether Washington, D.C., New York or San Francisco, by combining the networks we actually have a denser grid. We have more cell sites per grid, which allows us to have a better capacity in the network and better quality. It’s really going to be something that customers in both networks are going to notice.

The third point is that AT&T is going to commit to expand LTE to cover 95 percent of the U.S. population.

T-Mobile didn’t have a clear path to LTE, so their 34 million customers now get the advantage of having the greatest and latest technology available to them, whereas before that wasn’t clear. It also allows us to deliver that to 46.5 million more Americans than we have in our current plans. This is going to take LTE not just to major cities but to rural America.

You guys are already pretty big, already right up there with Verizon. How do you address any regulatory concerns that arise?

We are very respectful of the processes the Department of Justice and (other regulators) use.

The criteria that has been used in the past for mergers of this type is that the merger is looked at (for) the benefits it brings on a market-by-market basis and how it impacts competition.

Today, when you look across the top 20 markets in the country, 18 of those markets have five or more competitors, and when you look across the entire country, the majority of the country’s markets have five or more competitors. I think if the criteria that has been used in the past is used against this merger, I think the appropriate authorities will find there will still be plenty of competition left.

If you look at pricing as a key barometer of the competition in an industry, our industry despite all of the mergers that have taken place in the past, (has) actually reduced prices to customers 50 percent since 1999. Even when these mergers have been done in the past they have always benefited the customers and we think they will benefit again.

The other big concern with any merger is that you become busy with integration issues. Obviously this is a fast moving industry. How do you make sure that you guys are still doing what you need to do, rolling out the latest stuff, while you are handling a merger of this size?

I did this before when I combined the old AT&T Wireless with Cingular Wireless. I was the chief operating officer for Cingular.

Within three years we had reduced the churn rate in half and we had improved margins by 1,000 basis points. At the time of the merger, back in 2004, they said that we would lose customers and we would be too busy doing the merger integration process. The first process out of the chute, we led the U.S. industry in total net adds for that quarter, the fourth quarter of 2004. We have the same team. I am here and we are going to make sure this great AT&T team does exactly that again.

More Coverage

• AT&T Wraps Self in Flag, Says T-Mobile Deal Essential to U.S. Competitiveness
• The AT&Terminator: Rise of Ma Bell
• Sprint: AT&T’s T-Mobile Buy Would “Dramatically Alter” Market
• First Casualty of AT&T Deal: T-Mobile Drops From CTIA Panel
• What AT&T Owes T-Mobile if Deal Doesn’t Go Through
• T-Mobile USA: No, We’re Not Getting the iPhone Yet
• T-Mobile’s Memo to Staff on the AT&T Deal
• AT&T’s President on Why T-Mobile Deal Should Pass Muster and Won’t be a Customer Nightmare
• T-Mobile: We Were Totally Kidding About AT&T’s Crappy Network!
• AT&T Agrees to Acquire T-Mobile USA for $39 Billion

In a 4-1 vote–Commissioner Michael Copps dissented–the FCC is allowing the deal to go through, but with some conditions, most of them relating to the online video business. One key requirement that’s not happening: Comcast isn’t being required to divest itself of its equity in the Web video site Hulu, which a few lawmakers had called for. It will however be required to give up its role in managing Hulu. NBC U jointly owns it with the Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. (which also owns this Web site).

In a statement, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the conditions imposed “include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.”

Among those conditions, the FCC will also require Comcast to offer Web versions of its TV shows to what it calls “bona fide online distributors” under the same terms it offers them to cable and satellite providers. This would indicate that shows appearing on Hulu will probably end up on Apple TV or YouTube or elsewhere, meaning, as MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka suggested last month that Hulu’s exclusive rights to NBC content are over.

Comcast will also be required to offer broadband to some 2.5 million low-income households for less than $10 a month, and will be required to extend its network to reach 400,000 homes, build out service in six rural communities and provide free video and high-speed Internet access to 600 schools and libraries in underserved areas. This will allow Genachowski to claim some kind of victory on one of the Obama administration’s signature technology policy issues, which is spreading the availability of broadband.

In a dissenting statement, Copps called the merger “a transaction like no other that has come before this commission–ever,” and said “It confers too much power in one company’s hands.”

Harold Feld, legal director at Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interested group, said the organization was largely satisfied with the conditions except for one. It would have liked to see Comcast required to sell broadband service on a wholesale basis. “As longtime supporters of wholesale access, we believe such a condition would go a long way to help consumers by increasing broadband competition,” he said.

There are of course a lot of moving pieces surrounding this debate, and however the chips fall, it’s going to have a long-term effect over how the Internet operates over the next several years.

Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski was dealt an important setback when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the legal authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband providers. In hopes of still finding a way to rein in the providers, he’s since circulated new proposed rules that would require providers to disclose what kind of traffic they intend to throttle and why, giving consumers a little more information so they can make a more informed choice when picking a provider. And in a speech on Dec. 1, Genachowski also expressed support for “usage-based pricing,” which would essentially allow providers to charge variable pricing plans where consumers would pay higher fees for using higher amounts of bandwidth.

Certain Internet companies that aren’t providers, but who rely on having unfettered pipes through which they can deliver their services, aren’t happy with the proposed rules either. Companies like Amazon, Skype and Netflix, want stronger rules that would prevent the providers from slowing down traffic from their sites or blocking them altogether. They’ve even pushed the FCC to reconsider regulating the Internet outright as a telecommunications service, as it does the telephone system today, an idea that Genachowski briefly considered, then abandoned.

No surprise, they’ve been lobbying the FCC heavily, as have the telecom providers. According to Capital Business, a Washington Post publication, 150 organizations have hired 118 lobbying firms to try to influence the outcome of tomorrow’s vote.

The pressure isn’t stopping there. Republican commissioner Robert McDowell has pledged to vote against the rules, saying, as he did in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, that imposing regulations would threaten everything that makes the Internet a source of innovation. Commissioner Meredith Baker Attwell, also a Republican, has attacked the proposal and similarly pledged to vote against it, arguing that only Congress, not the FCC, has the authority to regulate the Internet.

Congressional Republicans, with their heads full of steam after their November electoral wins, are rushing into the fray. Michigan’s Republican Representative Fred Upton, who will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee when the new Congress comes into session early next year, wrote Genachowski and called his proposal “the most controversial item the FCC has had before it in a decade.”

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats are pressing fellow Democrat Michael Copps to vote for Genachowski’s rules, fearing that a vote against them would hurt President Obama politically, as Sara Jerome wrote in Hillicon Valley. In the end, he is expected to fall in line and vote in favor.

Perhaps a harbinger of things to come is the spat between Level 3 Communications and Comcast. Level 3, which operates much of North America’s fiber-optic network, last month accused Comcast of “trying to set up a toll booth” by charging Level 3 recurring fees whenever a Comcast subscriber streamed content that got delivered by Level 3. This happened right after Level 3 cut a deal to become the primary delivery network for Netflix.

The dispute has reached sufficient intensity for Level 3 to ask federal regulators to impose conditions on Comcast in its efforts to acquire NBC Universal, arguing that Comcast’s demand for the fees “adversely changes the nature of the Internet.” The FCC may yet get serious about reviewing the merger, as Politico reported last week.

Comcast for its part has argued that Level 3 is gaming network peering rules, and has “demanded unlimited capacity at our cost.”

Whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, expect lots of unhappy people.

I’m told that Philips has a new job lined up and that he informed Murdoch of his plans in early January. But when I reached him this afternoon, he declined to comment. PaidContent first reported the move.

Philips is a behind-the-scenes guy (though very easy to find at New York media events) who weighed in on much of Murdoch’s digital mergers-and-acquisitions work, as well as big-picture strategy like pay walls, etc. I’d been told repeatedly that he had the ability to launch his own projects within News Corp., though if he did so, I was not aware of it. A recurring rumor mill item had him working on a fabled “LinkedIn-killer” for the company.

News Corp. folks want us to know that Philips was not forced out. But there’s definitely a changing of the guard at the company, occasioned by the ascension of Rupert’s son, James Murdoch.

News Corp. (NWS) owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.

Statement attributed to Murdoch:

Jeremy is a very talented executive and I value his strategic contributions to our digital initiatives over the past six years. I fully understand his desire to focus on new entrepreneurial ventures and I wish him all the best in this next step in what will continue to be an exceptional career.

Dell (DELL) is acquiring Kace Networks, a systems-management appliances venture with clients in government, education and health care. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

For Dell, which is pushing harder than ever to expand tech services offerings, the deal seems a savvy one. Certainly, it dovetails nicely with the company’s acquisition of Perot and will aid its effort to peddle services to small- and mid-sized businesses–something the company clearly needs to do as profits from its core personal computer business dwindle.

Google (GOOG) stock has lurched five percent lower in the first few minutes of after-hours trading, as investors digest the news. If you want to anthropomorphize the market, you might speculate that it’s bummed that CEO Eric Schmidt and company didn’t show a higher revenue lift. But if you’re keeping track, revenue is up 17 percent compared with last year, and up 12 percent from the previous quarter.

Here is Citigroup (C) analyst Mark Mahaney’s “cheatsheet” for those playing at home (click to enlarge):

And you can see the company’s profit and loss and balance sheet here.

Google will be using YouTube to livestream its earnings call, but I’ll be providing some annotation here starting at 4:30 pm Eastern. You can also check out the company’s accompanying slide presentation here, and here’s a chart it’s particularly proud of (click to enlarge):

I’m trying out a promising new liveblog tool, but please bear with me if there are bumps along the way.

On the call: CEO Eric Schmidt, CFO Patrick Pichette, product guy Jonathan Rosenberg, sales boss Nikesh Arora. No Larry or Sergey.

Schmidt declares that he’s very pleased with Q4: “An extraordinary end to a roller coaster year.”

Schmidt: Clearly, we were right to start ramping up investments and will continue to do so. We’re investing in people and investing in tech based on our “70/20/10″ rule: 70 percent in core products, 20 percent in new business like mobile/Android, and 10 percent in “long view” initiatives like commerce and social.

And of course, more mergers and acquisitions. We’re continuing on a pace of roughly one M&A per month, some small, some big.

Pichette runs through the numbers in the release above. He reiterates Schmidt’s line about continuing investments.

Jonathan Rosenberg has a cold, but gets his message across: “We made some very hard decisions” to shut down some products to focus on winners. It’s our “more wood behind fewer arrows approach.” We’re focusing on DoubleClick integration, Android expansion and the Chrome OS. “YouTube, is in fact, monetizing well,” and we hope our partners make money, too.

Obviously, going forward, we’re going to plow resources into search. But other stuff too. Social, for instance. Not just social networking, but all of our products should be “social.” This can apply to search, local search, etc. We’re also focusing on commerce, whether people are making their purchases online or offline.

More Rosenberg: Mobile is important, and so is moving enterprise to the cloud.

Arora: We improved throughout the year, and Q4 was strong. Large companies like Staples (SPLS) and Volvo are directing an increasing portion of spending online [as they're supposed to do].

Arora: Search ads are always a value in December! Costs go up but they get more effective because people buy more.

Arora: Brand marketers are increasing their spending too. YouTube has had many successful brand campaigns. Have you seen Fox’s “Avatar” ads? They’re great. Other shoutouts for Sony (SNE) and American Express (AXP).

Arora: Most of the top networks have signed onto AdX ad exchange since we launched it in the fall.

Time for Q&A.

Google’s U.S. revenue had a big jump, but international revenue did not accelerate as quickly. What gives?

Arora: In the U.S., we saw large advertisers shifting offline to online. Other markets have different issues; hence, the different growth rates.

Are we back to normal in regard to seasonal patterns? Also, can you talk about “materiality” of mobile?

Pichette: We won’t talk about mobile revenue in any concrete way.

Arora: There is some different performance by vertical. Finance, obviously, isn’t as strong as it used to be.

Another question about mobile: Is Google trying to push revenue? Profitability? Also, please talk about China.

Rosenberg: Advertisers are starting to figure out what works on mobile. For instance, adding a phone number or an offer for mobile helps a lot.

Pichette: Regarding mobile, we want to drive innovation that in turn drives people to the Web, which is better for us. That’s the core engine of mobile.

Schmidt: “China stuff has been well-covered in the press,” the CEO notes before recounting the China story. “We’re in conversations with the Chinese government,” and our business has remained unchanged. “But in a reasonably short time, we’ll be making some changes there.” That said, we’d still like to be in China.

Missed a question. Apologies.

Please talk about outperformance of network business vs. owned and operated. Also, what accounts for higher marketing costs?

Pichette: Nothing to talk about re: network versus O&O. Re expenses, we said we were going to ramp up investment and we put in more there because we can track the results and the return on investment.

Arora: Yep, some of that money was to support consumer launches.

You said search increased five times on mobile. So what does that mean for revenue per search? Also, please talk more about increased spending on marketing.

Pichette: We’re really pleased with the marketing experiments we’re running.

Rosenberg: Regarding mobile, the new formats, targeting tools and reporting we’re giving mobile advertisers is making a huge difference. But I won’t answer your question about revenue.

Missed another question here.

YouTube monetization: Can you give us some metrics on how much inventory you’re selling?

Arora: Nope. But it has “gone from being a nice-to-have” to essential.

Pichette: The Youtube homepage nearly sold out in Q4. Hope that’s useful.

Can you break out ad spending by advertiser size?

Arora: Large advertisers are moving online, which is good. Retail was strong in Q4. We’re working with smaller advertisers to “bring them into the fray.” But the discrepancy so far has been mainly seasonal.

Can you rank your core businesses in terms of growth potential? Also, what’s up with you and Apple (AAPL)?

Schmidt: We’ve been saying for a while that display is a big opportunity. One story you haven’t seen so far is how successful we’ve been in display, but that will come out in 2010. [Note to PR staff: Start pitching!]

And obviously, mobile is small now but will grow quickly.

“With respect to Apple, it’s probably better to say”…that as a former board member “I have a special spot for Apple in my heart.” They’re a very well run company and “they have some very good stuff coming” strong competitor, etc.

Schmidt on Nexus One: What it is really about is a new way of buying a phone. Nexus One itself is the first in a series of examples where you can buy the phone online and pick your carrier.

Is Bing having an impact on cost per click?

Rosenberg: We think out CPCs are generally not affected by competitors. Prices are set by buyers.

Can you talk about Nexus One’s impact on margin?

Pichette. Not really. We want to innovate, etc. Nexus One will have its own margin and that’s how we’re focused on building the business.

We’ve seen third-party data on mobile projecting that iPhone could account for 50 percent of mobile traffic. Does that make sense to you? Also, you have said that the Apple relationship is “stable.” So what are the odds that you’re going to continue to provide search on the iPhone?

Schmidt: We won’t talk about the market share of Apple. And we won’t “speculate about any deals of any kind–true, not true, rumored, not rumored.”

Given that new display products are so great, is there any notion that people are moving dollars from search to display?

Schmidt: Advertisers “don’t shift, they add.” They might maximize search to maximize revenue and they might spend on display for long-term growth, branding, etc.

Pichette thanks Googlers listening for all their hard work. There’s an auxilary call at 6 pm Eastern with Pichette and Rosenberg, but I won’t be able to cover that one.

Google’s logic here is straightforward: If other big companies are buying mobile ad networks, then Washington can’t possibly be upset with us for buying AdMob.

And note that Google (GOOG) is also cheering on other mobile ad network mergers and acquisitions that have yet to happen but that the industry now expects, especially from rival Microsoft (MSFT). From Google’s Public Policy Blog:

Today’s news that Apple is acquiring one of AdMob’s competitors, Quattro Wireless, is further proof that the mobile advertising space continues to be competitive. And with more investments and acquisitions in the space, including from established players like Apple and Google, that’s a sign that vigorous growth and competition will continue. That’s ultimately great for users, advertisers and publishers alike.

Of course, there’s only one player here with a dominant lead in Web advertising, so only one of them is going to get significant regulatory scrutiny, no matter how many more deals we see.

Anyway, if Google is looking for other arguments to appease the Feds, how about this one: You can’t monopolize a market that doesn’t exist yet. And while everyone’s sure that mobile advertising will be a big deal one day, it won’t be for a while.

Meanwhile, check out this great “slow clap” montage!

“I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don’t think Joe Biden could, either. But it is not the same as being the president or vice president of the United States. It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. To run a business, you have to have a lifetime of experience in business, but that’s not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Barack Obama or Joe Biden are doing.”

– Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina

Her dreams of heading up the World Bank dashed, former Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) CEO Carly Fiorina, the architect of one of the worst tech mergers in history, has turned her attention to the U.S. Senate.

After months of speculation, Fiorina officially announced her candidacy today. She’ll run as a Republican against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.). Of course, to do that, she must first win the Republican primary. Fiorina broke the news in an op-ed in the Orange County Register.

“Admittedly, I have not always been engaged in the electoral process, and I should have been,” she wrote. “For many years I felt disconnected from the decisions made in Washington and, to be honest, really didn’t think my vote mattered because I didn’t have a direct line of sight from my vote to a result. I realize that thinking was wrong.”

Reflecting on her personal history, Fiorina continues: “As I grew throughout my career, beginning as a secretary and eventually becoming a CEO, I saw how government impacted business. I learned more as a member of advisory boards at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. I now understand, in a very real way, that the decisions made by the Senate impact every family and every business, of any size, in America. This is what motivates me to run for the U.S. Senate. And so today I am announcing my candidacy to serve the people of California as your next U.S. senator….Together we can turn things around.”

Together we can turn things around? Not if Fiorina’s performance at HP is any indication. Before she was forced out of the company by its board of directors, she was so at odds with the uniquely Californian “HP Way” that her corner office could have been powered solely by Bill Hewlett spinning in his grave.

UPDATE: Here’s another Fiorina op-ed from earlier this year in which she discusses executive pay. Unsurprisingly, she is against President Obama’s efforts to restore “common sense” to CEO compensation. And why wouldn’t she be? After all, she walked away from HP with a $21 million severance package.

UPDATE: For those of you just joining us over at CNet, the headline is a joke referring to HP’s ill-starred merger with Compaq.

At a TVWeek conference in Manhattan, Bewkes repeated arguments he has made in the past: Chiefly, that big media mergers have a lousy track record and that he couldn’t see how Comcast (CMCSA) could unlock any value by buying a majority stake in NBC Universal from GE (GE).

“Somebody has finally noticed that these things don’t work out so well,” he said, adding “We love to see our competitors taking risks.”

But just to hammer that point home, Bewkes compared the proposed deal to the one his company made nine years ago when it embarked on an ill-fated merger with AOL. That deal (made when Bewkes was running Time Warner’s HBO unit)  “basically made no sense” at the time, he said.

The main talking point in favor of that transaction–that connecting Time Warner’s content with AOL’s Internet distribution would create synergy–was “nonsensical,” he said. But “these kind of arguments, you’ll hear some of them this week, in the other merger that we’ve been talking about,” Bewkes said.

Clear enough?

Wall Street, by the way, remains unimpressed with the proposed deal as well: Comcast shares are down about 10 percent since word got out.

In other reiteration news, Bewkes also said, again, that he doesn’t plan on selling his Time Inc. publishing unit. Though he left himself a tiny window of wiggling room by noting that “no public company can ever say that it wouldn’t consider restructuring some part, whether it’s Warner, HBO, whatever.”

But Bewkes insisted that Time Inc.’s best-known magazine brands, including “Time, People, Sports Illustrated, InStyle,” are holding their own as print products and that the challenge will be turning them into online successes.

“We have basically a healthy business in terms of our relationship with readers. These brands mean something and they’re evolving…,” he said. “If you can’t take the leading titles that people have known for decades, and use the new world to make them relevant, really, shame on us.”

I’ve heard that Arango is leaving for six months and that the Times doesn’t have plans to replace him while he’s out. But media editor Bruce Headlam, via email, says the paper is still figuring all of that out:

A lot is still up in the air–When Tim might go and for how long. We do know that he will be coming back, however, and he’s a huge asset to our group so we’re looking for creative solutions in the meantime.

Arango came to the Times after stints at Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune and News Corp.’s (NWS) New York Post. I’ve asked him for comment–for instance, I’d love to know why he wants to trade midtown office suites for the desert–and will report back if I hear from him.

And to cap off the meta navel-gazing, I should report here that I like my gig very much and have no intention of leaving.

“This significantly expands Dell’s enterprise-solutions capabilities and makes Perot Systems’ strengths available to even more customers around the world,” Dell CEO Michael Dell said in a statement. “There will be efficiencies from combining the companies, but the acquisition makes such great sense because of the obvious ways our businesses complement each other.”

The deal is expected to close some time in January and when it does, Perot will become Dell’s services unit.

An interesting move. While there had been speculation that Dell was looking to acquire a handset company like Palm (PALM), it seems Dell was far more interested in boosting its enterprise business by acquiring an outsourcer like Perot.

“This significantly expands Dell’s enterprise-solutions capabilities and makes Perot Systems’ strengths available to even more customers around the world,” Dell CEO Michael Dell said in a statement. “There will be efficiencies from combining the companies, but the acquisition makes such great sense because of the obvious ways our businesses complement each other.”

The deal is expected to close some time in January and when it does, Perot will become Dell’s services unit.

An interesting move. While there had been speculation that Dell was looking to acquire a handset company like Palm (PALM), it seems Dell was far more interested in boosting its enterprise business by acquiring an outsourcer like Perot.

Sun shares are trading up on the news. That said, they’ve been trading higher for a few days now, inexplicably up about 20 percent versus Nasdaq, which isn’t doing nearly as well.

Odd, that, isn’t it?

Sun shares are trading up on the news. That said, they’ve been trading higher for a few days now, inexplicably up about 20 percent versus Nasdaq, which isn’t doing nearly as well.

Odd, that, isn’t it?