What happens with Broadview Networks under Windstream? Windstream is only midway through its integration of EarthLink. It will now have 8 UC platforms.
That isn't too confusing to all of the sales channels. Eight to choose from! WIND should be a one stop shop for everything UC and SIP at this point. [Similar to VARs hitting up a VAD like SYNNEX for many of these same vendors.] To do that, WIND would have to hire in some name brand SIP Experts to start beating that drum - loud, clearly and often. Currently, the message is a new flavor of UC every webinar. No over-arching
The noise about T-Mobile and Sprint merging is getting louder. Here's the problem: Recall the mess that the Nextel-Sprint integration was. This will be worse. Why? T-Mobile didn't even really integrate MetroPCS. What synergies are there really? It would simply be to get bigger, not to be a better competitor. For at least 24 months, VZW and AT&T would simply kick its ass - and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
That sums up the Level3-CenturyLink merger as well. That is scheduled to start in September if California and a couple other states don't derail it. This will be a mess for customers and partners alike. The product set is so different. Level3 is wholesale VoIP, international, transit and transport. CenturyLink is consumer, small business, mid-market, broadband, voice and some cloud. Very different sales skills.
Both exited data center, but CenturyLink has acquired many cloud and security companies in the last few years. They haven't done much with it because they don't really sell to Enterprise like they would need to. Plus Branding. Plus confusion over at Savvis after that acquisition.
None of that factors change post merger. None. One problem with many of these telcos is that they don't bring in fresh blood. Frontier just hired from Verizon for VP of sales and retention. Pull in someone from outside telco. The biggest hurdle: Culture. Culture eats Strategy for lunch.
Most of the major CLECs are gone: XO, EarthLink, Level3. Others are transitioning: TPX, AireSpring, Birch, Mettel to try to figure out what business looks like with network resale and managed services. It is a different world.
Everyone was betting on UC, but most couldn't get over the deployment headaches. Then when the price war started, they not only weren't prepared for the war, but couldn't or didn't get into it. The latest top 10 leader board for UC doesn't look too much different than 2015 or 2016. Next year it will for certain.
Windstream and Charter should look different in 2018.
Cisco's Spark revamp at EC17 coupled with its latest acquisitions and lay offs might have an effect on Cisco UC seats later this year. Or the acquisition of West Corp by Apollo Management for $5B and change might stall sales. Some of Cisco's other partners - like FLTG in NY - also got acquired. Integration after acquisition always affects sales (and retention).
AT&T and VZ look to be big winners while the CLECs shift and transition. Some of the other players in the space - like Zayo and GTT - also made acquisitions. But are they really replacements for Ma and Pa Bell or even WIndsream, Level3 and C-Link? They have a window of opportunity that is for sure.
Zayo grabbed ELI and Integra. All of the press is about fiber to the tower, so I am thinking that will not be a C-Link or WIND alternative.
Comcast will pick up some business. At $6B in CLEC business revenue now, it almost surpasses most of the CLECs in revenue. They need to take some friction out of the quoting and ordering process. (Charter too! Unbelievable that at its size, it is so arduous to process quotes and orders.)
Until the next merger is announced this is what it will look like. The channel often went to CLECs because of channel friendly attitude as well as suitable product set. This time round the channel will be looking at companies NOT in the midst of turmoil. Ease of doing business will be relative. Just another reason businesses like using channel partners: so they don't have to deal with it!
]]>Most of the collapse was due to the Big 3 claimed 94% of the market by 1955. So a hundred other companies were competing for 6% of the market.
And it was a Big Market. "A total of almost 58 million cars were produced and sold during the 1950s by the American manufacturers. Compared to the total population of the United States by the end of the decade, 179,323,175, that is almost one new vehicle for every three living persons of all ages." [wiki]
It reminds me of the cable industry. There were hundreds of mom-and-pop cable companies. Some merged to be regional; some sold out. Now there are 660 cable operators according to NCTA, but it is mainly just 4 with majority market share - Charter, Comcast, Cox, Altice.
CLEC numbers have dwindled. RBOCs are back together in 2 buckets - Verizon and AT&T. Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream, VZ and AT&T have the lion share of the business telecom market.
Hosted VoIP/UC is a lot like the auto industry in the 1950s. Only the product is so similar as to be indistinguishable. At least, cars had distinguishing features like car doors, lines, looks, radio, interior. VoIP pretty much all looks the same. Some of the mobile apps are starting to change that a little.
Some of it is scale. Once the Big 3 got big, costs go down, name recognition goes up. The smaller guys cannot afford to make one-tenth the number of cars at the same cost. Vendors give volume discounts but when Ford is selling 12M cars and Edsel is selling is 108 thousand! there will be cost differences. It is one of the things that smaller ISPs don't grasp. They want to resell from AT&T or Verizon for cheaper than their vendor. It doesn't work that way in any industry. Do you think Firestone sold tires to Ford for a lot less than Edsel?
The problem with cable/pay TV right now is that the OTT product is a little cheaper and much better at meeting the needs of the buyers. Think Netflix or Hulu.
There are so many analogies but look at Italian food. Chains with Italian food like Olive Garden and Carabba's appeal to masses who just want food that looks Italian and is affordable. The foodies want the authentic food. Still others want pampering and service etc. VoIP providers are shooting for the masses. They have a mass market product for the masses. They are Olive Garden. However, in technology today, there isn't really a MASS market. There are many market segments with different types of buyers with varying needs and desires.
Only so many brands (I use that term loosely in telecom) will dominate the mass market. Everyone else will be niche or fringe (like the MSO sector or even the auto industry).
]]>By that, I mean, if you can fog that mirror, you are a partner.
Shouldn't partner programs be more like the NFL or NHL draft than an army recruitment office?
Wouldn't it be better to not sign up everyone?
It would certainly help providers' partners if there was demand for the service offering and if there was just a handful of partners to supply that demand. Instead we have little demand* for the services and everyone can be a partner.
That is the VAD theory, because a value add distributor is similar to a store. They can carry anything. They are in logistics, warehousing and distribution. That is all the value they bring. In stock or not?
On the Master Agent side, I just don't understand the signing up of 20+ UC providers, 10+ data center providers and 10+ Microsoft Partners.
For perspective, USLEC had 26,000 clients when Paetec bought them; Cbeyond had 51K when Birch acquired it; 8x8 has 48K. These aren't large numbers. "In 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.73 million employer firms in the US. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.6 percent." [SBE] The sweet spot for businesses, according to CompTIA, is 10-100 employees, which represents a 20% slice of the overall market - or 1.8 million businesses. FYI, 50K of 5M is 1%.
What's my point? No one is crushing it (or ever will). A lack of funds, crappy marketing (if any), no focus and flawed strategy that is poorly executed are all factors that mess with success in telecom. If AT BEST you are going to get 50K businesses, do you really need 450 to 2500 partners signed up to hit it?
Wouldn't providers do better with the zealots?
Verizon and BellSouth/AT&T used to be exclusive. Partners could only sell their services. It worked out well for both parties. It meant there was focus, specialization. Co-selling worked too.
By signing up every master agency, vendors think they get access to more partners. They don't. Most partners use 5 (five) master agents. VARs use at least 2 (more likely 3) different VADs. So by signing up more partners, vendors get their logo in more places, but they don't get more partners. In fact, what they DO get is to fork over more dollars for events.
The model can't last much longer. And if they did the numbers over the last even 4 years, they would find that Pareto knew exactly what he was talking about. Also, that the amount of busy work given to channel managers is just piling up. Hard to hit quota when bogged down with recruiting, quoting, selling, reporting, funnel and a hundred other things.
What vendors confuse is exposure for demand; logo placement for marketing.
I've written about it often and enough. Where's the competitive analysis of the marketplace? Who is your target? Why do they buy? Why YOU and not THEM?
It is very different with network. Lit buildings and fiber routes are the factor. You don't have that with managed services or security or cloud. The limiting factor for voice/VoIP/UC is LNP which has mostly been solved (except for pockets of independent IOC territories).
Put up the red velvet rope. Sign up, train, on-board and work with partners who actually want to work with you. And limit that. It builds up the relationships that you have. It makes your partners stronger.
It isn't going to limit vendor revenues, because vendors are probably quoting and saying YES to stuff that they shouldn't be. Vendors are NOT getting deals that they would like to - or that they built for - because they are too busy chasing every single partner and every single opportunity. In the process, the vendors are diluting their message (brand) and wearing out their channel managers. But hey what do I know. I have not only seen this playbook, everyone has a copy of it, and yet no one is winning using it.
*DEMAND = after 15 years, UC has only penetrated to 29% of the market? CLECs have been around since 1996 and can't get more than 1% of the market - in 20+ years.
]]>On an agent webinar this morning, Windstream is beating the SD-WAN drum. I understand that SD-WAN is a boon to retail, restaurants, branch offices and rural locations. Not every business wants to pay over $500 for a pipe. They want to pay what they were paying for T1s. SD-WAN will be a boon for broadband providers - satellite, 4G/LTE, fixed wireless, DSL and cable modem. It swings the WAN back to IP-VPN. Is that a great idea in the age of Hacking?
There are other benefits for SD-WAN: ease of management; faster deployment; analytics; transparency; failover/redundancy; but the bell that most CIOs rang at the WAN Summit in NYC was cost savings.
We are going to see a bunch of locations move from dedicated Internet (DIA or MIS) to broadband. From a commission standpoint that will suck. From a vendor standpoint that will be a pain. However, if partners layer on SD-WAN from a provider plus two broadband providers, we might be able to keep the MRR close. This will become the standard configuration for many business locations.
That is the drum that is beating.
As an RLEC (rural ILEC), revenue streams heavily favored consumer services. The RLECs had USF and TDM transitions occur to shake up their business models. Also, cable starting eating their lunch. DSL didn't cut it. The RLECs had to spend to beef up the network for both better broadband and Telco TV. They just did it too late. Now they have to chase the business markets with HPBX, SD-WAN, cloud services and anything else to bring revenue in and margin back.
CLEC margins on resold network are thin. UC isn't killing it, for anyone. Managed services is where the margin is. SD-WAN is just another technology that needs to be deployed for the customer and managed (like managed router or a monitored Internet pipe).
That is why the drum is beating.
Viptela puts it nicely, "In today's fiercely competitive digital-driven marketplace, enterprises must remove complexity from the WAN. WANs need to be easier to manage, cost-efficient, more agile and available, and better aligned with an organization's computer and business needs. The SD-WAN is quickly becoming an essential component of enterprise digital transformation."
This makes it sound like WAN is complex. It isn't really. MPLS is not that hard or complicated. It is easier than IP-VPN and more secure. (Or at least it is for me.) With many network operators connected to cloud platforms (like AWS, Rackspace and Azure), adding a direct connection to a WAN is simple. (Or if the customer has a data center presence,he can tap into the cloud via a peering fabric.) There are ways to architect a secure, manageable WAN.
Partners will be selling SD-WAN, the flavor of the year. I just wish they had not all been calling it SD-WAN and had actually incorporated it into a branded service offering. That could have led to differentiation and some targeting so it doesn't become a commodity so fast. (Oops! Too late.)
]]>I try really hard to avoid cablecos. They don't like the Channel; they don't like wholesale. It seems that direct sales reps can get pricing much faster.
Unfortunately, cable is chasing market share by practically giving away services. So with that in mind I had to get a quote for a EPL between Nashville and Tampa. This would involve Comcast and Charter. Let's examine the timeline:
Request for quote enters the system on 3/15. On 3/21 Survey shows FL location serviceable with construction. Sent email for pricing. On 3/28 after buffing them, I get "budgetary" pricing. On 4/3 client asks for contract. On 4/26 I am still waiting for paperwork and the "formal" pricing.
How does a company who "As of December 31, 2016, Charter's network passed 49.2 million homes and businesses, and served 26.2 million residential and small and medium business ("SMB") customers" take so long to price and run contracts?
I know it would be an effort but there's this thing called Google Earth that you can use to map your network, so every site survey doesn't take days. MasterStream has a pretty good interface for quoting. There are tools in this cloud age to take some fo the friction out of the process - if anyone actually wanted to.
This raises some questions:
I can't even fathom what a Desktop as a Service process must be like now that Navisite is under the Spectrum umbrella.
I know this looks like a bully pulpit kind of blog, but I can't be the only one who finds this ridiculous.
It gets better. One of the Tier 1 ISPs agrees to sell my customer a 1GB pipe that goes to Atlanta from Jackson, Mississippi. Route diversity was needed for my client, an ISP and VoIP Provider. Turn up took 111 days on a lit path. The Tier 1 ISP used Uniti Fiber for the loop. It was a mess.
The CFA (facilities assignment inside the central office where my client is collocated) was ignored, which created the first of a number of problems. TTU (test and turn up) was basically, "We plugged it in!" Repair had to be engaged to get it to work. (A new NID had to be installed.)
BGP took an extra week to get working properly. It only all started working properly yesterday. It was ordered on 12/19/16.
And the client says it routes to Dallas, not to Atlanta. Fantastic.
I turned up another circuit with an ILEC. It was a 20 MB DIA, but I guess 20x20 had to be specified, because it came up at 18x6. I don't even know how you make these kind of mistakes. This was noticed on the day after turn up, but we had to go through repair to get it fixed after the turn up engineer ignored all emails for 3 days.
What the hell is wrong with telecom that they can't just do the job they are hired to do? Every day we hear about airlines having big issues, but telecom firms have even more problems. I think it is just that we EXPECT them in telecom.
All I keep thinking is: If they can't deploy Internet pipes correctly in a timely manner, who would want to try using them for something complex like IAAS or security or UC?
And let's let them do more M&A! Everyone of the carriers listed has been involved in M&A in the last year. All of them suffer from the integration -- or choose to blame it.
]]>This and some other moves clearly closes the book on the era of the CLEC.
Southern Light got acquired by UNITI Fiber (formerly CS&L which was the Windstream spin-off REIT) for $700M.
The Intelisys division of Scansource finally revealed that they acquired Kingcom, the exclusive Verizon partner that they run their VZ business through. Just bringing it all in house.
There were more announcements of companies picking a SD-WAN partner: OneStream picked Versa; Star2Star chose Velocloud; Nitel chose Versa, too. This is quickly becoming like Hosted VoIP/UC. It will quickly become a commodity, faster than any technology the channel has sold.
AT&T bought Straight Path for a billion dollars for the spectrum. Any spectrum is property with a water view right now.
]]>In this podcast, I speak with TelePacific's SVP Ken Bisnoff on why TelePacific is re-branding. The CLEC of old is gone. Telecom is shifting to be more than voice and Internet. TelePacific has transitioned to a Managed Services Carrier with its acquisition of DSCI. TelePacific is not the same company it was even 5 years ago. It is now a Tier 1 CSP for Microsoft. There is a SOC (security operations center) in St. Louis. The lines of business have changed. Now the name will too.
One point made during the podcast to note: the providers are shifting, but Agents need to shift too.
If you cannot see the flash player, you can download the mp3 or listen on Soundcloud.
]]>Think about this: SD-WAN providers use an appliance as the CPE or end-point. This appliance can function as a switch, router and more. It can be a firewall, a wireless access point and more.
Most of the big name LECs (ILEC and CLEC) have added SD-WAN technology to their portfolio. Even lesser known former CLECs like TelePacific, NITEL, Transbeam and AireSpring are offering SD-WAN technology. That means less Cisco boxes being deployed.
Not only is this a problem for the hardware vendors like Cisco, ADTRAN, Juniper, Brocade and Extreme Networks (mentioned because of recent news), but this is a problem for VARs and MSPs.
Long ago, I explained that VARs selling carrier services was like CLECs selling AT&T services - you are fighting against your biggest vendor. Now those same vendors are going to take away the Box Business that floats their business. VARs still make money selling boxes (so do Avaya partners!). The margins have shrunk. The sales have declined a little year over year, but not enough to make many change their lines of business or their model.
EarthLink announced 4000 locations on its SD-WAN as it merged with Windstream. If EarthLink can sell multi-location retail and restaurant chains, the SMB market is in play. The bread-and-butter of the VAR.
I am not throwing around FUD. I'm saying that every industry comes under attack by new technology. The new techis SD-WAN; the legacy business is Cisco and VAR - as this segment moves to a bigger managed services provider and hardware-as-a-service.
Just as they are getting acquired by Windstream, EarthLink finally gets its stuff together. ELNK announced that in six months they have deployed SD-WAN functionality to about 1700 offices for 41 customers. That is pretty impressive but the technology (SD-WAN) is best deployed at small offices, rural and branch locations. It is where the tech gets the best ROI.
FYI... SD-WAN, like WebRTC, is a technology NOT a product. Stop trying to sell the tech!!!
IPO's are on the horizon. Fuze got another bag of VC cash and hired a CEO to take them to the public land. I hear that Star2Sar is thinking the same thing.
Speaking of cashing out, my client, Hunt Telecom in Louisiana, got acquired by CS&L aka Uniti Fiber. Congrats to Jason, Kevin, Robert and Troy!!!
LUMOS Networks got grabbed by investment firm EQT for $950 million cash.
One weird acquisition: Atlassian spent $425 million on task management provider, Trello. Altassian owns Hipchat (a Slack competitor) and JIRA. It seems like a good combo.
A head scratcher: Fonality got bought by Netfortis. Asterisk and Genband.
ARRIS is buying Ruckus from Brocade because "Every carrier will need to be in wireless."
TelePacific is coming into 2017 with its acquisition of UC provider DSCI. They will be re-branding the new nationwide managed services provider at the Vegas CP show. Yesterday at a partner event, TelePacific CEO Dick Jalkut told the room that they had spent $500K on ITx and UCx demo centers around the country as well as building out a SOC (security operations center) in St. Louis. Any current TelePacific partner can visit the SOC. You might want to ask if they will pick up the airfare. TelePacific isn't giving up on network - it is what made them the regional giant that they are - but all bets for the future of the company lie with the strategic products - like security, managed IT, Office365 and a Broadsoft UCaaS offering - that DSCI strengthens with their own experience and products in those areas..
OTT UCaaS provider, Panterra, has inked another distribution deal; this time with VoIP Supply.
]]>The Age of the CLEC - the competitive carrier - is at end. They fill gaps now, like Birch, Bullseye and Granite for POTS and other legacy services. XO is part of Verizon. EarthLink absorbed by Windstream to become like AllWorx, USLEC and Paetec, a memory. Level3 will be a division of CenturyLink, where it will cease to be a rival to the RBOC in the Enterprise.
Net Neutrality is going away. That zero rating investigation to determine if giving some content a free rideover all other content was fair has been closed.
It is simply cable or ILEC. And both groups have to be wondering how much longer they can continue to carry their massive debt. The big dilemma is that ARPU is stagnant but subscriber counts have peaked. Cord cutting is a real issue for cable, telco, satellite and content owners. NBCU closed two channels recently and re-branded another. Apparently, twenty five cents per subscriber per channel per month isn't enough any longer. And advertising rates are a little off too. The economics of many legacy businesses are being blown up!
The cost of services increases as more small cells are deployed to blanket coverage for 4G LTE, LTE-Advanced and how much will 5G cost? If ARPU is stagnant for cellcos in this price war, yet the cost to build and maintain the network remains constant and you don't lose any subscribers, all is good.
Sprint and T-Mobile have waged a brand battle against Verizon and AT&T. It has worked to a degree. But all 4 carriers are losers. The foreign owned T-Mobile and Sprint can afford to lose money for a while, but how long?
With the subsidized phones are gone so are contracts and large ETFs. More churn. Higher cost of customer acquisition. Ma and Pa Bell already saw this small business broadband and voice. Then they lost the consumer broadband and voice market. Now the cellular market is up for grabs.
Verizon is looking at buying Charter now. Rumor has Comcast looking at buying its 4G backup partner, T-Mobile. The cablecos denied cord cutting until it was too late. Telcos denied cable competition until it was too late. There really aren't any visionary CEOs in our space.
The problem remains the same: at some point you have to be make money, not just on paper.
Debt payments, network CAPEX, stock dividends, payroll and pension liabilities are a burden to ILECs - all of them: Frontier, AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, even Windstream and Fairpoint (who sold out to Consolidated).
Revenue is getting crushed as the cost of bandwidth, transport and transit collapse. Voice revenue has declined. Text revenue is flat. OTT apps have taken video calls (Skype, Facetime), some voice calling (Messenger, WhatsApp), SMS/MMS. What's left? The Enterprise market and the Government market.
What happens when there are just 4 carriers? Is the channel necessary to sell monopoly services? Well, see.
Some other points:
With subsidized phones gone, how will that affect phone makers long term? Will we see the leaps in tech that we have so far? Unlikely. Google Pixel at $649. The iPhone 7 is $700. Not that many folks are going to drop that cash every 18 months to two years. (Note to self: Get in the smartphone/device insurance business!)
When will the next highly desired device come along to prompt an exclusive carrier deal (a la AT&T and the original iPhone) to drive signups?
Even Sprint is Buying into the business of streaming media with a $200M investment into Tidal, another money losing music streaming service.
As someone at lunch pointed out, many foreign LECs like Vodafone, BT, Telstra, even NTT, are sitting on tens of billions in cash. They could buy into the US market.
We sit at the nexus point of some interesting times.
Did you notice that UCaaS consolidation halted? Yeah, me too.
]]>The same messaging to VSB, small and medium business just won't work, especially for UCaaS. The pain points are different. The buyer persona are different. As I have said before: when you say you sell into the 1-500 or 1-1000 employee space, that is several segments of the market.
Seth Godin has an excellent short post about Almost No One buys from you. There are 27 million businesses in the US. If you have 10K business customers, that is 0.037% of the market -- or almost no one.
So when you say "I sell to everyone", you are fooling yourself. You have customers. Profile them. Duplicate them. Engage them.
"We think we're designing and selling to everyone, but that doesn't match reality. It makes no sense at all to dumb down your best work to appeal to the longtime bystander ..." [or the critic or the shopper than doesn't want any of your features or who wants to pay as little as possible]
It isn't about a scatter shot approach to sales and marketing. It is about being an archer or a sniper.
Fiber network operators and fixed wireless providers know this better than other service providers because you can't sell what the fiber or tower don't touch. However, it is a lesson that CLECs never wanted to learn.
]]>If you can't see that flash mp3 player, you can download the mp3 or listen on Soundcloud.
]]>AT&T with its DirecTV buy and its grab for TW is basically following Comcast's playbook. Comcast bought NBCU, is becoming an MVNO (cellular reseller) and has a $6B Comcast Business division that is going to chase enterprise (much to the dismay of CenturyLink and Windstream).
Verizon is busy selling off wireline assets and buying up as much spectrum as its AMEX card will allow in a heavy bet that 5G and IOT will solve all of their revenue and cable issues. In a move bizarre move, VZ bought up AOL and Yahoo as content plays. This playbook is solely Lowell C. McAdam's.
Frontier, Fairpoint, CenturyLink and Windstream are RLECs looking to get out from under a heavy debt burden without cellular assets and without a content play. Each has its own playbook.
Windstream buying EarthLink almost makes sense especially at a $1.1 Billion all stock deal. (This move doesn't hurt the channel since both providers were pro-channel.)
CenturyLink buying Level3 is not only surprising; it is disheartening. Level3 has its problems certainly. Yet its management understood the business it was in and what it took to win business. For a partner, that is a plus.
To fuel that $34B deal (total value of stock, debt, etc), CenturyLink is selling its data center business (Qwest and Savvis) for $2.1B to a coalition of PE firms headed by the former CEO of Terremark. This coalition is also buying 4 cyber-security firms to build a global cyber security business. Partners are curious if they will still get paid on deals already sold. And what the future holds here.
FPL getting acquired by Crown Castle also makes partners worry about commissions, since CC doesn't have a channel and doesn't retail its fiber.
The CLEC industry is practically gone now. After nearly one trillion in investment money dating back to 1996 or so, most of the CLECs we have come to know and sell are pretty much gone.
What does that leave the Channel? IOT, Cloud, UCaaS, SD-WAN, security - basically selling managed services. Network is going to be tough to sell and make a living on as prices continue to erode. SD-WAN for the win!!!
Network is easy to sell and there is demand for it. You really can't say that for any other product in the portfolio.
Data center is still alive and well. Long live colocation!
]]>CenturyLink just sold off its data center business that was a combo of Qwest Cyber Centers and SAVVIS to a group of PE firms for $2.15B in cash and C-Link keeps a minority stake worth $150M in the new company. CL bought Savvis for $2.5B in 2011. Buy High; Sell Low. Bell-Head Mentality.
The PE coalition that bought the data centers also grabbed 4 cyber-security firms in order to announce this global security co, to be run by Manny Medina, former CEO of Terremark Worldwide.
Wired's headline says it best: The World's Telecoms Are Under Threat From All Sides.
Broadband, cellular and voice are all flat or declining markets.
IAAS and PAAS are ruled by Amazon, IBM and Google. Microsoft only got into the game recently and is doing better than all the telco's combined.
PE firms are buying up data centers as the world adjust to cloud computing, an app market and streaming TV and radio.
DDoS attacks are happening too often. So are Hacks. There are not enough fingers to fill all the holes in this dyke.
UCaaS is ruled by 8x8, Vonage Business, RingCentral, Fuze and a bunch of other providers that are not a telco. The PBX market may be shrinking but not fast enough for the other Hosted VoIP players. Cisco and Microsoft have chunks of the enterprise UCaaS business that the telcos don't.
Comcast Business is at $6B in annual revenue, which makes it a bigger CLEC than almost all that are left. WIND does $5B. EarthLink less than $1B. Birch and TelePacific are private. Level3 does $8B. CenturyLink does $17B (much of it ILEC revenue). Zayo is $2B.
Apps like Messenger, WhatsApp, Skype and Slack are replacing voice and SMS and even email. It is a topsy-turvy world. What's a telco to do? Well, merge! Get bigger because bigger solves nothing, but it makes money for top execs in the C-Suite and the Board room and on Wall Street.
Our economy spins on e-commerce and the Internet. When the companies that provide that Internet are too clunky to do it properly, what happens to our economy?
We went from a five nines voice network of reliability to cell phones and VoIP that quite frankly can't be more than three nines. Have you noticed the number of outages lately by telcos and cablecos?
There is a lot going on. There are many areas of opportunity, but the fall back from these guys is "more of the same", "do what I know" and "one more quarter!". None of these transactions is good for the industry, the economy or the consumers. They are stop gap, short term money movers. We are going to wake up shortly and realize that it is 1970 all over again. It makes the NSA job easier when there are few players, but what about the customers?
In the data center space, one master agency contacted me after the C-Link announcement to tell me that the folks at CenturyLink have no details about the sale. How can that be when Monroe has been trying to sell the DC division all year? Great planning, guys!
Whose customer is it? Will the agent still get paid? Will the customer see a price increase? Who is the billing entity? Who will the customer be paying? These are good questions that bothered some TELX customers when Digital Realty took over.
I keep seeing executives at master agencies say these deals are good. Do they say that in print because they have to?
Don't forget that you can leave a public comment with the FCC on any of these mergers. You can voice your opinion here. You will need a docket number but you can google it after the filings are in the system.
]]>In 2008, C-Link bought Embarq, formerly Sprint/United.in $11.6B deal including assumed debt. In 2010, C-Link bought Qwest which included RBOC assets that flew the US West banner. "The valuation of CenturyLink's purchase was $22.4 billion, including the assumption of $11.8 billion of outstanding debt held by Qwest."
In 2011, CenturyLink begins to stray from grabbing fiber and POTS lines in favor of the data center business it acquired with Qwest. Much to the chagrin of the agent channel, Savvis was scooped up for $3.2B including debt. This started a series of acquisitions to beef up a cloud business that for all intents and purposes C-Link is mired in for no reason.
The ITO Business Division of Ciber (managed services), AppFrog (PAAS), Tier3 (IAAS), Cognilytics (analytics), DataGardens (DRaaS), Orchestrate (DBaaS), netAura LLC (security services) and ElasticBox (VPS) - all scooped up in the last 3 years to make a soup out of a cloud division that it is still trying to sell. The rumor today is that Savvis will be spun off. No word if that will be just data center or both data center and cloud. And that makes even less sense since Level3 actually knows how to sell colocation - unlike practically anyone in Monroe.
I understand that being rural and watching your CAF and USF subsidies slowly decrease makes you yearn for fatter and happier days. And when you look at Level3's $10B in NOLs, you start to think like Carl Icahn. However, have you seen what Icahn did to XO???? Have you seen what C-Link did to Qwest and Savvis??? That husk will next be Level3.
With debt this deal will be worth about $34B to get combined revenues to $25B.
Not a single merger in telecom in the last fifteen years resulted in anything good. Not one.
The integrations rarely go as planned. These two companies probably have 26 or more separate and different software systems in the BSS/OSS. These will NEVER be integrated. Orders, status and asset availability will be a nightmare. I know. I know. You think I am a pessimist. But truly this will suck especially for the channel.
Any agent that says this is good is either (a) looking for press or (b) is delusional.
There is now less choice. When VZ takes over XO, except for Zayo, who is left that isn't a LEC or cableco? What happened to the CLEC industry? Totally collapsed as its owners cashed out. Everyone got bigger and no one got better. One by one they have fallen.
It is why Cable is winning the broadband game. (Cable is single minded.) It is why businesses buy cloud services from OTT. (Bell-head mentality precludes anything but network and voice.)
This is the LEC problem: lack of focus; deficient long term strategy; and a missing willingness to win the customer. It's all about the creation of value without actually creating any value.
Since the Board will almost stay intact and the CEO remains, what new gen strategy or thinking do you think will occur with the combined entity? I get why the L3 CFO is staying: someone has to keep that debt at bay and play with the NOLs so that the stock doesn't crash when revenues start to slide.
I won't even get into the culture differences between the 2 companies. L3 and TWT had only slightly different cultures but most of the TWT people exited. This is a good payday for L3 CEO but he will go down as the guy who killed a good idea. The blood of thousands of employees and agents are on Story's head.
Hopefully, someone else will make a BID for Level3 as a white knight - Comcast, Zayo, or a PE firm*.
**Although STT owns about 13% of Level3, I don't see a PE firm wanting the company, except to do to it what Icahn did to XO. L3 doesn't throw off enough cash.
According to CenturyLink press release, the deal, which is expected to close by the end of the 3Q 2017, results in: