UPDATE: As the commenter below notes, Sirius could file for an extension in November. If it were granted, the company would then have another 180 days to meet NASDAQ’s minimum bid requirement, which would take it all the way into 2010.

Shares of the deteriorating Internet company slipped on news of the impending announcement, falling more than two percent to $11.96. Earlier in the day, they’d been trading at $12.79.

Clearly, Bartz’s appointment doesn’t appear to be inspiring much confidence in investors–at least at the outset. Perhaps all her enterprise experience is proving a bit of a turnoff. Ten years as vice president at Sun Microsystems (JAVA). Board seats at Intel (INTC), Cisco Systems (CSCO), and NetApp (NTAP). Where’s the Internet experience? Where’s Steve Jobs? Surely he could right this sinking ship.

“She was an inoffensive, but largely unexciting candidate–someone who would be a steady hand at the wheel–but investors were hoping for a lot more than that,” Jeff Lindsay, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in New York, told Bloomberg. “She’s undoubtedly a competent and able executive. The problem is, is she the right fit for the job?”

Likely a better fit than Jerry Yang. And that’s a start, right? Oh, there’s this as well: When Bartz started at Autodesk it had revenues of $285 million. Today it generates about $1.5 billion.

Says Needham analyst Mark May:

If the reports are accurate, our initial reaction is that we view Bartz as a good choice because:

Of course, there is more we’d like to see/hear before making our final determination, such as i) what’s Bartz’s strategy/vision; ii) will current President Sue Decker resign; iii) will Bartz hire a strong #2 w/ new media experience; and, iv) will Chairman Roy Bostock resign. That said, our initial reaction to the possibility of Bartz being named Yahoo!’s new CEO is favorable.

Over at Mini-Microsoft, the Redmond insiders who frequent the site’s comments are incredulous over the layoff rumors, insisting that they are baseless. Costs will be cut, they say, but they will be cut through attrition and reduction in open headcount. “For the last time folks–THERE ARE NO LAYOFFS HAPPENINGS IN JANUARY,” writes one Mini-Microsoft commenter. “Beyond Jan…well we dont have a crystal ball–but if the economy doesn’t improve and the company misses targets–it would get uglier for everyone–from no raises/no bonuses to (maybe) cutbacks/layoffs… but then, those are the rules of the game in corporate America.”

How could a company whose Chief Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf, once told the Senate Commerce Committee that allowing “broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success,” approach those carriers with a proposal that would seemingly do just that?

There’s a very simple answer to that question: Google is not doing that, and reports suggesting that is are misguided. Yes, Google (GOOG) “has approached major cable and phone companies” with a plan to “place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers.” Yes, this plan would improve content delivery speeds.

And, no, doing so does not violate the concept of network neutrality. If it did, companies like Akamai and Limelight, which also have servers hosted at broadband provider facilities, would long ago have been tarred as anti-Net neutrality villains. Colocating caching servers is a common practice that improves bandwidth usage by bringing data closer to the end user. And while it will certainly make Google’s services faster and more responsive, it won’t do so at the expense of non-Google services. That would be a violation of Net neutrality.

“Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through edge caching–temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that are located close to end users–violates the concept of network neutrality,” Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel explains. “As I said last summer, this myth–which unfortunately underlies a confused story in Monday’s Wall Street Journal–is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works…. All of Google’s colocation agreements with ISPs–which we’ve done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache–are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic.”

So Google is not negotiating exclusive deals for privileged access. It is not proposing “a fast lane for its own content.” It is not seeking to prioritize its traffic in violation of the Net neutrality principles it espouses. Frankly, this story has little to do with Net neutrality at all. “Network neutrality is about the routing of packets,” Tech Liberation Front’s Tim Lee explained earlier this year when Akamai was accused of violating Net neutrality. “A network is neutral if it faithfully transmits information from one end of the network to the other and doesn’t discriminate among packets based on their contents. Neutrality is, in other words, about the behavior of the routers that move packets around the network. It has nothing to do with the behavior of servers at the edges of the network because they don’t route anyone’s packets.”

Fairchild (FCS) reduced its guidance as well. It had been expecting $338 million to $360 million in sales for its fiscal fourth quarter. Now it expects just $320 million.

Fairchild is the latest semiconductor company to temper its estimates as demand for the computers and telecommunications gear in which its chips are used contracts. Earlier this week, Texas Instruments (TXN), National Semi (NSM) and Broadcom (BRCM) all cut their projections because of lousy market conditions.

Looks like Sue was right, and the road to which he referred was a short one. The struggling telecom company has hired counsel to explore a bankruptcy filing, The Wall Street Journal reports. Nortel, well aware what such reports can do to investor confidence, insists that no such filing is imminent. The company does, however, acknowledge that it has engaged advisers to help it weather the current economic storm. Just who has Nortel hired? Word on the street says Lazard Ltd. and law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.

Grim news for Nortel, which has spent the past several years trying to recover from the general downturn in the telecom industry and a nasty accounting scandal. With apparently very little success.

In a statement Wednesday, the company said, “Nortel is hard at work reshaping the business to even better serve our customers. There are those who fuel negative speculation, but there are many more who believe that Nortel has put in place the necessary plans to strengthen our financial footing and reset our cost base.”

Team –

Rob

Given Sirius XM’s low stock price, Mr. Karmazin said he would love to take the company private. But given the state of the credit markets, ‘How do you find [the money] today?’ If the company were generating positive cash flow, which he expects it to do for the full year in 2009, privatization would become much more feasible, he says.”

– Wall Street Journal, Sept. 15, 2008

Looks like Sirius XM (SIRI) CEO Mel Karmazin won’t be taking the company private anytime soon, although given its current stock price there’s no reason he couldn’t. At its current value, you’d have to sell off more than 70 shares of SIRI to purchase a one-month subscription to Sirius Satellite Radio.

Speaking at the Reuters Media Summit in New York Wednesday, Karmazin said he’s optimistic about the troubled satellite radio provider’s fourth-quarter revenues. Karmazin sees double-digit growth in 2009, despite the current economic environment, which he bemoaned on an earnings call last month with a very blunt, but entirely apt: “This environment sucks.” And though he was happy to discuss privatization with The Journal just a few months ago, that option seems to be off the table. “We don’t feel that we need to be acquired,” he said. “You should assume the company is not for sale.”

For now, anyway.