We prepare our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). The consolidated financial statements include our accounts and those of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. We have eliminated significant inter-company transactions and balances in consolidation.

The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expense and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, doubtful accounts, goodwill and intangible assets, accruals, stock-based compensation, income taxes, restructuring charges, leases, long-term service contracts, contingencies and litigation. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates.

We consider all highly-liquid investments purchased with an original maturity of three months or less at the date of purchase and money market mutual funds to be cash equivalents. We invest our cash and cash equivalents with major financial institutions and may at times exceed federally insured limits. We believe that the risk of loss is minimal. To date, we have not experienced any losses related to cash and cash equivalents.

We account for investments that provide us with the ability to exercise significant influence, but not control, over an investee using the equity method of accounting. Significant influence, but not control, is generally deemed to exist if we have an ownership interest in the voting stock of the investee of between 20% and 50%, although we consider other factors, such as minority interest protections, in determining whether the equity method of accounting is appropriate. As of December 31, 2012, Internap Japan Co., Ltd. (“Internap Japan”), a joint venture with NTT-ME Corporation and Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (“NTT Holdings”), qualified for equity method accounting. We record our proportional share of the income and losses of Internap Japan one month in arrears on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as a long-term investment and our share of Internap Japan’s income and losses, net of taxes, as a separate caption in our accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

The carrying amounts of our financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and other current liabilities, approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these assets and liabilities. Due to the nature of our credit facility and variable interest rate, the fair value of our debt approximates the carrying value.

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to a concentration of credit risk principally consist of cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and trade receivables. We currently invest the majority of our cash and cash equivalents in money market funds. We have invested in previous years, in accordance with our formal investment policy, in high credit quality corporate debt securities, U.S. Treasury bills and commercial paper.

We carry property and equipment at original acquisition cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. We calculate depreciation and amortization on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets. As of January 1, 2012, estimated useful lives used for network equipment are generally five years; furniture, equipment and software are five to seven years; and leasehold improvements are 10 to 25 years or over the lease term, depending on the nature of the improvement. We capitalize additions and improvements that increase the value or extend the life of an asset. We expense maintenance and repairs as incurred. We charge gains or losses from disposals of property and equipment to operations.

We record leases in which we have substantially all of the benefits and risks of ownership as capital leases and all other leases as operating leases. For leases determined to be capital leases, we record the assets held under capital lease and related obligations at the lesser of the present value of aggregate future minimum lease payments or the fair value of the assets held under capital lease. We amortize the assets over 10 years or over the lease term, depending on the nature of the improvement, but in no event beyond the expected lease term. The duration of lease obligations and commitments ranges from four years for office equipment to 25 years for facilities. For leases determined to be operating leases, we record lease expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Certain leases include renewal options that, at the inception of the lease, are considered reasonably assured of being renewed. The lease term begins when we control the leased property, which is typically before lease payments begin under the terms of the lease. We record the difference between the expense in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss and the amount we pay as deferred rent, which we include in our consolidated balance sheets.

We capitalize internal-use software development costs incurred during the application development stage. Amortization begins once the software is ready for its intended use and is computed based on the straight-line method over the economic life of the software product. Judgment is required in determining which software projects are capitalized and the resulting economic life. We capitalized $6.7 million, $9.8 million and $4.9 million in internal-use software costs during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the balance of unamortized internal-use software costs was $16.7 million and $13.4 million, respectively, and during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, amortization expense was $3.4 million and $2.1 million, respectively.

We periodically evaluate the carrying value of our long-lived assets, including, but not limited to, property and equipment. We consider the carrying value of a long-lived asset impaired when the undiscounted cash flows from such asset are separately identifiable and we estimate them to be less than its carrying value. In that event, we would recognize a loss based on the amount by which the carrying value exceeds the fair value of the long-lived asset. We determine fair value based on either market quotes, if available, or discounted cash flows using a discount rate commensurate with the risk inherent in our current business model for the specific asset being valued. We would determine losses on long-lived assets to be disposed of in a similar manner, except that we would reduce fair values by the cost of disposal. We charge losses due to impairment of long-lived assets to operations during the period in which we identify the impairment. During 2012 and 2011, we concluded that an impairment indicator existed to cause us to reassess our developed software. Following the reassessment, further described in note 4, we recorded an impairment charge of $0.4 million and $0.5 million, in the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, which is included in “Exit activities, restructuring and impairments” on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

We perform our annual goodwill impairment test as of August 1 of each calendar year absent any impairment indicators or other changes that may cause more frequent analysis. We also assess on a quarterly basis whether any events have occurred or circumstances have changed that would indicate an impairment could exist.

For purposes of valuing our goodwill and other intangible assets, we have the following three reporting units: IP products, IP services and data center services. All reporting units have goodwill. We did not identify an impairment as a result of our annual impairment test and none of our reporting units were at risk of failing step one.

To determine the fair value of our reporting units, we utilize the discounted cash flow and market methods. We have consistently utilized both methods in our goodwill impairment tests and weight both results equally. We use both methods in our goodwill impairment tests as we believe both, in conjunction with each other, provide a reasonable estimate of the fair value of the reporting unit. The discounted cash flow method is specific to our anticipated future results of the reporting unit, while the market method is based on our market sector including our competitors.

We determined the assumptions supporting the discounted cash flow method, including the discount rate, using our best estimates as of the date of the impairment review. We have performed various sensitivity analyses on certain of the assumptions used in the discounted cash flow method, such as forecasted revenues and discount rate. We used reasonable judgment in developing our estimates and assumptions and there was no impairment indicated in our testing.

The assumptions, inputs and judgments used in performing the valuation analysis are inherently subjective and reflect estimates based on known facts and circumstances at the time we perform the valuation. These estimates and assumptions primarily include, but are not limited to, discount rates; terminal growth rates; projected revenues and costs; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for expected cash flows; market comparables and capital expenditure forecasts. The use of different assumptions, inputs and judgments, or changes in circumstances, could materially affect the results of the valuation. Due to inherent uncertainty involved in making these estimates, actual results could differ from our estimates and could result in additional non-cash impairment charges in the future.

Other intangible assets have finite lives and we record these assets at cost less accumulated amortization. We record amortization of acquired technologies using the greater of (a) the ratio of current revenues to total and anticipated future revenues for the applicable technology or (b) the straight-line method over the remaining estimated economic life. We amortize the cost of the acquired technologies over their useful lives of five to eight years and 10 years for customer relationships and trade names. We assess other intangible assets on a quarterly basis whenever any events have occurred or circumstances have changed that would indicate that impairment could exist. Our assessment is based on estimated future cash flows directly associated with the asset or asset group. If we determine that the carrying value is not recoverable, we may record an impairment charge, reduce the estimated remaining useful life or both. We concluded that no impairment indicators existed to cause us to reassess our other intangible assets during the year ended December 31, 2012.

When circumstances warrant, we may elect to exit certain business activities or change the manner in which we conduct ongoing operations. If we make such a change, we will estimate the costs to exit a business or restructure ongoing operations. The components of the estimates may include estimates and assumptions regarding the timing and costs of future events and activities that represent our best expectations based on known facts and circumstances at the time of estimation. If circumstances warrant, we will adjust our previous estimates to reflect what we then believe to be a more accurate representation of expected future costs. Because our estimates and assumptions regarding exit activities and restructuring charges include probabilities of future events, such as our ability to find a sublease tenant within a reasonable period of time or the rate at which a sublease tenant will pay for the available space, such estimates are inherently vulnerable to changes due to unforeseen circumstances that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. We monitor market conditions at each period end reporting date and will continue to assess our key assumptions and estimates used in the calculation of our exit activities and restructuring accrual.

We account for income taxes under the liability method. We determine deferred tax assets and liabilities based on differences between financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities, and we measure the tax assets and liabilities using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when we expect the differences to reverse. We maintain a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to their estimated realizable value. We may recognize deferred tax assets in future periods if and when we estimate them to be realizable and supported by historical trends of profitability and future expectations within each tax jurisdiction.

We evaluate liabilities for uncertain tax positions and we recognized $0.3 million for associated liabilities during each of the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. We recorded nominal interest and penalties arising from the underpayment of income taxes in “General and administrative” expenses in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

We measure stock-based compensation cost at the grant date based on the calculated fair value of the award. We recognize the expense over the employee’s requisite service period, generally the vesting period of the award. The fair value of restricted stock is the market value on the date of grant. The fair value of stock options is estimated at the grant date using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with weighted average assumptions for the activity under our stock plans. Option pricing model input assumptions, such as expected term, expected volatility and risk-free interest rate, impact the fair value estimate. Further, the forfeiture rate impacts the amount of aggregate compensation. These assumptions are subjective and generally require significant analysis and judgment to develop.

The expected term represents the weighted average period of time that we expect granted options to be outstanding, considering the vesting schedules and our historical exercise patterns. Because our options are not publicly traded, we assume volatility based on the historical volatility of our stock. The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for periods corresponding to the expected option term. We have also used historical data to estimate option exercises, employee termination and stock option forfeiture rates. Changes in any of these assumptions could materially impact our results of operations in the period the change is made.

We do not recognize a deferred tax asset for unrealized tax benefits associated with the tax deductions in excess of the compensation recorded (excess tax benefit). We apply the “with and without” approach for utilization of tax attributes upon realization of net operating losses in the future. This method allocates stock-based compensation benefits last among other tax benefits recognized. In addition, we apply the “direct only” method of calculating the amount of windfalls or shortfalls.

We generate revenues primarily from the sale of data center services and IP services. Our revenues typically consist of monthly recurring revenues from contracts with terms of one year or more. We recognize the monthly minimum as revenue each month provided that we have entered into an enforceable contract, we have delivered the service to the customer, the fee for the service is fixed or determinable and collection is reasonably assured. We record installation fees as deferred revenue and recognize the revenue ratably over the estimated customer life.

We determine data center revenues by occupied square feet and both allocated and variable-based usage. Data center revenues include both physical space for hosting customers’ network and other equipment plus associated services such as power and network connectivity, environmental controls and security.

We recognize IP services revenues on fixed- or usage-based pricing. IP service contracts usually have fixed minimum commitments based on a certain level of bandwidth usage with additional charges for any usage over a specified limit. If a customer’s usage of our services exceeds the monthly minimum, we recognize revenue for such excess in the period of the usage.

We use contracts and sales or purchase orders as evidence of an arrangement. We test for availability or connectivity to verify delivery of our services. We assess whether the fee is fixed or determinable based on the payment terms associated with the transaction and whether the sales price is subject to refund or adjustment.

We also enter into multiple-element arrangements, or bundled services. When we enter into such arrangements, we account for each element separately over its respective service period provided that we have objective evidence of fair value for the separate elements. Objective evidence of fair value includes the price charged for the element when sold separately. If we cannot objectively determine the fair value of each element, we recognize the total value of the arrangement ratably over the entire service period to the extent that we have begun to provide the services, and we have satisfied other revenue recognition criteria.

In January 2011, we adopted new guidance, which eliminates the residual method of allocation for multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements, and requires that we allocate arrangement consideration at the inception of an arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method. This new guidance also establishes a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable, which includes (a) vendor-specific objective evidence, if available, (b) third-party evidence, if vendor-specific objective evidence is not available, and (c) best estimated selling price, if neither vendor-specific nor third-party evidence is available. Additionally, the guidance expands the disclosure requirements related to a vendor’s multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. Adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Vendor-specific objective evidence is generally limited to the price charged when we sell the same or similar service separately. If we seldom sell a service separately, it is unlikely that we will determine vendor-specific objective evidence for the service. We define vendor-specific objective evidence as an average price of recent standalone transactions that we price within a narrow range as defined by us.

We determine third-party evidence based on the prices charged by our competitors for a similar deliverable when sold separately. It is difficult for us to obtain sufficient information on competitor pricing to substantiate third-party evidence and therefore we may not always be able to use this measure.

If we are unable to establish selling price using vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party evidence, and we receive or materially modify a sales order after our implementation date of January 1, 2011, we use best estimated selling price in our allocation of arrangement consideration. The objective of best estimated selling price is to determine the price at which we would transact if we sold the service on a standalone basis. Our determination of best estimated selling price involves a weighting of several factors including, but not limited to, pricing practices and market conditions.

We analyze the selling prices used in our allocation of arrangement consideration on an annual basis at a minimum. We will analyze selling prices on a more frequent basis if a significant change in our business necessitates a more timely analysis or if we experience significant variances in our selling prices.

We account for each deliverable within a multiple-deliverable revenue arrangement as a separate unit of accounting under the new guidance if both of the following criteria are met: (a) the delivered item or items have value to the customer on a standalone basis and (b) for an arrangement that includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item(s), we consider delivery or performance of the undelivered item(s) probable and substantially in our control. We consider a deliverable to have standalone value if we sell this item separately or if the item is sold by another vendor or could be resold by the customer. Further, our revenue arrangements generally do not include a right of return relative to delivered services.

Deferred revenue consists of revenue for services to be delivered in the future and consists primarily of advance billings, which we amortize over the respective service period. We defer and amortize revenues associated with billings for installation of customer network equipment over the estimated life of the customer relationship, which was, on average, approximately five years for 2012 and four years for 2011 and 2010. We defer and amortize revenues for installation services because the installation service is integral to our primary service offering and does not have value to customers on a stand-alone basis. We also defer and amortize the associated incremental direct costs.

We routinely review the collectability of our accounts receivable and payment status of our customers. If we determine that collection of revenue is uncertain, we do not recognize revenue until collection is reasonably assured. Additionally, we maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts resulting from the inability of our customers to make required payments on accounts receivable. We base the allowance for doubtful accounts upon general customer information, which primarily includes our historical cash collection experience and the aging of our accounts receivable. We assess the payment status of customers by reference to the terms under which we provide services or goods, with any payments not made on or before their due date considered past-due. Once we have exhausted all collection efforts, we write the uncollectible balance off against the allowance for doubtful accounts. We routinely perform credit checks for new and existing customers and require deposits or prepayments for customers that we perceive as being a credit risk. In addition, we record a reserve amount for service level agreements and other sales adjustments.

Research and development costs, which include product development costs, are included in general and administrative costs and are expensed as incurred. These costs primarily relate to our development and enhancement of IP routing technology, acceleration and cloud technologies and network engineering costs associated with changes to the functionality of our proprietary services and network architecture. Research and development costs were $2.0 million, $0.2 million and $1.9 million during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These costs do not include $6.7 million, $9.8 million and $4.9 million of internal-use software costs capitalized during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

We compute basic net loss per share by dividing net loss attributable to our common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. We exclude all outstanding options and unvested restricted stock as such securities are anti-dilutive for all periods presented.


	Year Ended December 31,
	2012			2011			2010
Net loss and net loss available to common stockholders	$	(4,318	)	$	(1,702	)	$	(3,622	)
Weighted average shares outstanding, basic and diluted		50,761			50,422			50,467

Net loss per share, basic and diluted	$	(0.09	)	$	(0.03	)	$	(0.07	)

Anti-dilutive securities excluded from diluted net loss per share calculation for stock-based compensation plans		5,909			5,816			5,750

We use the management approach for determining which, if any, of our services and products, locations, customers or management structures constitute a reportable business segment. The management approach designates the internal reporting that management uses for making operating decisions and assessing performance as the source of any reportable segments. As described in note 11, we operate in two business segments: data center services and IP services.

In February 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued new guidance to improve the transparency of reporting reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The guidance requires an entity to (a) present (either on the face of the statement where net income is presented or in the notes to the financial statements) the effects on the line items of net income of significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income, but only if the item reclassified is required under GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period and (b) cross-reference to other disclosures currently required under GAAP for other reclassification items (that are not required under GAAP) to be reclassified directly to net income in their entirety in the same reporting period. The guidance is effective for reporting periods after December 15, 2012. Because the guidance impacts presentation only, it will have no effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

In December 2011, FASB issued new guidance that requires entities to disclose both gross and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. In January 2013, FASB issued new guidance that applies to derivatives and securities borrowing or lending transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013. Early adoption is not permitted, but this guidance will be applied retrospectively for any period presented that begins before the date of initial application. We do not expect adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on our financial statements.

During July 2012, FASB issued new accounting guidance that allows an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that an indefinite-lived asset is impaired for determining whether it is necessary to perform the quantitative impairment test. The guidance is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012, with early adoption permitted. We do not expect adoption to have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

During January 2012, we adopted new accounting guidance related to convergence between GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The new guidance changes the wording used to describe many of the requirements in GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements to ensure consistency between GAAP and IFRS. The new guidance also expands the disclosures for fair value measurements that are estimated using significant unobservable (Level 3) inputs. The adoption had no impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

During January 2012, we adopted new accounting guidance related to the presentation of comprehensive income, which requires the presentation of components of net income and other comprehensive income either as one continuous statement or as two consecutive statements and eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. The new guidance also requires the presentation of reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component in both the statement in which net income is presented and the statement in which other comprehensive income is presented. However, in December 2011, the guidance related to the presentation of reclassification adjustments was deferred. Because the guidance impacts presentation only, it had no effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

During January 2012, we adopted new accounting guidance which allows an entity to make a qualitative evaluation about the likelihood of goodwill impairment. We will be required to perform the two-step impairment test only if we conclude, based on a qualitative assessment, the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not to be less than its carrying value. We elected to apply the quantitative assessment for the annual impairment test for the year ended December 31, 2012. We may consider the qualitative assessment when performing our next annual test for impairment.