With sales of $10.1 billion last year, a third of its total, the home and networks business is among Motorola’s (MOT) largest and most profitable. It also makes Motorola one of the top three set-top box manufacturers in the industry. As such, the division will command a hefty price–roughly $4.5 billion, according to The Journal, which posits private equity firms and other communications gear makers as possible buyers.

No word yet on whether the possibility of selling home and networks emerged after Motorola was unable to spin off its mobile-phone business. The company for its part, insists that such a move is still in the cards.

“Separation into two independent, publicly traded companies (Mobile Devices and Broadband Mobility Solutions, which comprise Enterprise Mobility Solutions and Home and Networks Mobility Solutions) is the publicly stated long-term goal of Motorola,” the company said in a statement. “We remain committed to the separation goal and continue to believe that it is the right strategy to position Motorola for long-term success.”

The deal gives Cisco (CSCO) a foothold in China’s massive cable market, whose 160 million subscribers make it the largest in the world. And with the Chinese government mandating full digitization by 2015, this figure could grow to 200 million in as little as three years.

“That presents for Cisco and other competitors in the market a very, very compelling market opportunity,” Hilton Romanski, VP of corporate development for Cisco, told Reuters. “What we’re trying to get access to is good local expertise that can help us think about how to make this transition, becoming an increasingly local company in China.”

The unit boasts 14 different tuners compared with the typically high-end set, which has about three. Its speakers are reportedly comparable to those of a high-end stereo system, and with its Cell chip and image-processing technology, it is capable of improving the resolution of a crappy YouTube video to near high-definition quality. Finally, in addition to displaying eight high-def broadcasts at once, the TV can record them–simultaneously. Oh, it can time-shift them if you’d like, too.

What is this TV among TVs, this holy grail of couch potatoans called? the Cell Regza 55X1. And it costs $11,115.

$11,115? For a TV? In this recession? When TV prices are declining?

Damn right. And Toshiba expects to sell about 1,000 of them a month in Japan before bringing them to market in the U.S. and Europe in 2010.

[Image credits: Toshiba and AVWatch]

“We do not intend to file for bankruptcy….We have lots of plans to grow our business.”

– Blockbuster spokesperson Karen Raskopf, March 3, 2009

Blockbuster in a Monday filing told the Securities and Exchange Commission what anyone who’s observed its fast-declining fortunes has known for some time now: The company isn’t sure it can stay in business much longer. In a PricewaterhouseCoopers assessment included as part of its latest 10-K, Blockbuster (BBI) acknowledged that its financial situation raises “substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern” and said it may have to close its doors if its financial situation doesn’t improve in the near future. Seems that $250 million revolving loan Blockbuster announced last week is conditional, and the video rental chain says there is “no assurance” that it can meet its requirements.

An unfortunate turn of events for Blockbuster, but far from an unexpected one. The company did not fare well in its battle against DVD-by-mail pioneer Netflix (NFLX), and its recent efforts to stay relevant have been head-shakers at best. A $1.3 billion gambit for an electronics chain that would go bankrupt less than a year later? A weak (and costly) set-top box offering that would later be made redundant by a deal with TiVo (TIVO)? A vending-machine program with partner NCR (NCR) that, like its entry into the DVD-by-mail market is late to a game it’s already losing? And all these things conceived and launched amid a challenging macroeconomic environment and constrained capital markets. Sad, really. Hard to imagine that 10 years ago Reed Hastings was doing all that he could to convince Blockbuster to buy Netflix…

Why the sudden interest in a renewed partnership? Could be the recent change in management at DirecTV, which was taken over by Liberty Media (LINTA) in an $11 billion asset swap with News Corp. (NWS) (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and of this Web site). Or could it be that DirecTV simply saw the writing on the wall after TiVo successfully sued Dish for infringing on its patented time-warp technology?

Perhaps a little of both, hmm?

Live Mesh, though it takes Ozzie five pages to describe it, is essentially a “software-plus-services” platform that uses the Web to synchronize and share data among devices, applications and people (you’ll find a walk-through here and a good overview here).

“Over the past ten years, the PC era has given way to an era in which the Web is at the center of our experiences–experiences delivered not just through the browser but also through many different devices including PCs, phones, media players, game consoles, set-top boxes and televisions, cars, and more,” Ozzie writes. “It is our mission in this new era to create compelling, seamless experiences that combine the power of the Internet, with the magic of software, across a world of devices. … the Web is the hub of our social mesh and our device mesh.”

“The Web is the hub of our social mesh and our device mesh.”

Wait.

Does Bill Gates know that? Because last year he told CNN’s “American Morning,” “We’re making the PC the place where it all comes together.” Clearly, in the ensuing year, Gates and Microsoft noticed that Google (GOOG) et al. are fast shifting computational relevancy to the Web, away from the desktop and, more importantly, away from Microsoft.

Live Mesh, if it’s successful, will change that. Because, as Joe Wilcox notes over at Microsoft Watch, “Live Mesh is Microsoft’s attempt to turn operating system and proprietary services platforms into hubs that replace the Web. Microsoft is building a services-based operating system that transcends and extends Windows and also the function of Web browsers.” Adds Wilcox, “It’s bold, brilliant and downright scary.”

“We think we have solved the real fundamental problem, which has been that choosing movies on a television has been extremely challenging,” Netflix CEO Reed Hastings told the New York Times. “Video-on-demand companies worked at it for a long time, but choosing movies on the TV just doesn’t have the power of the Web. We want to be integrated on every Internet-connected device, game system, high-definition DVD player and dedicated Internet set-top box. Eventually, as TVs have wireless connectivity built into them, we’ll integrate right into the television.”

A compelling vision of Netflix’s future and one that may sound the death knell for Blockbuster, Amazon’s Unbox and Vudu as well. Or perhaps not. Certainly, this little bit of legalese at the tail-end of the press release announcing the services belies Hastings’s optimism just a wee bit.

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, including statements regarding the development of a set-top box for delivery of content over the Internet to television sets, the delivery of a compelling online home entertainment service, Netflix’s strategy and positioning in online delivery of content, and the future of Internet to the television. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ, including, without limitation; the risk that the development of the set-top box or its associated online delivery service may not meet technical requirements, consumer expectations, or otherwise be implemented by the parties; that certain studios will not grant either of the parties necessary rights or otherwise impose limitations on such rights that might impede implementation or hamper consumer adoption; Netflix’s ability to create other partnership opportunities for the delivery of digital content to the television; and possible technological or content licensing impediments.”