On Rad's Radar? - telco Archives

Transactional Agents Called Names

2012-05-04T15:56:44Z

Over at CP, the transactional agents are being called Prostitutes and Zombies in opinion pieces. I find that sad considering that the Zombie comment comes from a guy who whined because he couldn't make huge commissions off call centers any more.

The one thing that most of these opinions neglect is that the World of Telecom is all about Transactions. It is a business based solely on Arbitrage.

Going back to the Golden days of Long Distance, newcomers (the IXC's like MCI, Sprint and Qwest) entered the market by starting a price war. It continues to this day.

Every CLEC that enters a market does so by undercutting the ILEC. Rarely has this been done with any innovation. Even the DLEC's that launched the DSL market in 1999 - Covad, Rhythms and Northpoint - disrupted it with old Bell Labs technology. Bell Labs had discovered DSL technology in the sixties but did not introduce it until 1987. DSL wasn't standardized until 1998. Their whole schtick was to undercut the T1 market.

Hookflash pointed out today that not much has changed in telephone since 1876. Layer 1 may have changed from copper to fiber to radio spectrum, but voice is ultimately the same.

Even VoIP is just another example of arbitrage. Phone.com and other VoIP Providers - most notably MagicJack and Vonage - constantly talk about the cost savings of VoIP, using the technology as simply a replacement for the POTS line.

If you can sell it online, it is Transactional!

As a nation we might have been better off NOT breaking up AT&T. Bell Labs was a national treasure of research. And, look, the gang is back together. The Death Star still flies.

So when you jump on Transactional Agents, take a good look at your own business. You probably market on Saving Money. Where's the Value in that?

And don't give me the "It's how we get their attention" dribble. This industry is in a race to zero. It's the Wild West of prospectors looking for short-term gains -- and I don't just mean just the newer providers. Look in the C-Suite and the Board of Directors at any ILEC or CLEC. All they care about is short term gains.

So who is really the Prostitute here?

The CEO (and his other C-Staff) who lies to the FTC and FCC about a merger and cries about it later, because they didn't get their bonuses?

The Congressmen who take trips, meals and money to stay in office to maintain the status quo?

The CEO of a yet-another VoIP company, who is just out to grab some market share with an Asterisk-based switch?

Just because you sell some cloud services, doesn't make you a non-transactional agent. When you take a customer's telecom spend from $500 to $650 per month by upselling cloud, then you can say it. But if you take $500 per month in spend and shrink it, you are just as transactional as the Zombie - you just color it different.

Cable has come storming into this sector with nothing more than a price gouging grab at market share - which is strictly Transactional!!!

We are all going to suffer because of the Arbitrage mindset. Commissions will decline right along with price. It will be harder to make a living. It will be harder for the LEC's to hit revenue, so debt will cost more, eventually leading to BK.

We have too many players in this Industry and not nearly enough that are innovative or add any real value. And many that barely make ends meet. All of that just adds to the price war, which leads to more transactions.

So who are you calling names?

Is it Cloud versus Agents?

2012-05-02T16:45:52Z

Is it Cloud versus Agents?

As an Agent, I sell bandwidth and transport almost exclusively. I am learning that the Channel does not want that business. The carriers do, but on the wholesale/carrier side. No 10GB private lines. No 1GB ports. Nope. The Channel wants Multi-site multi-access customers. That's fine. Just stop talking about your fiber map then. It's irrelevant for that kind of sale.

The CLEC's also want Agents to sell Managed Services and anything Cloud. That's nice but who cares?

Cbeyond announced that they are "no longer recruiting traditional telecom agents". well, they already signed up the biggest masters - CMS, Telarus, Microcorp, TBI, etc. So what they are really saying is that traditional agents will have to use a master agent to get paid. That's becoming Normal in telecom. Carriers just want to deal with master Agents. I guess, they think that is more effective or efficient. I have no idea if it is either. We'll see, I guess.

Like so many other providers, Cbeyond thinks that the answer to its cloud strategy will be VAR's. That's not likely to happen.

VAR's don't trust telco. (Heck, I'm still waiting a month for an FOC from XO on an Internet T1, so I totally get the attitude.) VARs already have relationships with VAD's like Ingram and Tech Data, who can provide most of what Cbeyond is offering - or they can provide it themselves. Would you go to Rackspace or Cbeyond or EarthLink for hosting? That's basically what it comes down to: who is doing the hosting.

Right now Microsoft itself and carriers are getting into the traditional VAR space (offering hosted Microsoft products and data backup). Why would VAR's shift from a reseller model to a sales agent? It's kind of like, do you want white-label or straight resale?

The thing that most miss is that it is all about Control. In white-label, you can build a branded business that you have a decent amount of control over, especially in Hosted PBX. In straight resale, the bill, the brand, everything is in the carrier's name. No control at all.

My clients - CLEC, ISP and ITSP - want the illusion of control - or at least as much control as they can get. VAR's want the same thing. In the case of the ISP and the VAR, they like technology, but selling and marketing not-so-much. And you won't have much success forcing them into a sales+marketing shop - any more than you will trying to get T1 slingers become Consultative Sales people pitching cloud. Why? Motivation. Comfort Zone.

Robin Robbins has a very successful business offering turn-key marketing programs to VAR's. Cloud providers need to plug in to that kind of a system.

XO just re-launched its old hosting brand, Concentric, probably to get some space between the telco and its cloud services. (XO has to do something about its reputation in the telecom space and re-branding buys them time until someone buys them.)

Some Agents will obviously move into this space. Some already have making money on Cloud Comm like Hosted PBX, UC, IVR and conferencing. Some have sold collocation - although its a big leap to PAAS and IAAS from colo. But virtualization might be a nice tool in that box. It will come down to who you trust to deliver it.

I'm not saying Agents shouldn't be shifting their business. Lord knows that the way it is now, it is extremely tough to make the living we are used to while selling what we are used to. So a shift has to come. I just don't think it will be to the same carriers that make it in the future. When you look at things like commission adjustments, contract disputes, channel segmentation, and the like, Agents might want to try another silo of vendors to see if they get a better shake.

There is a tremendous amount of competition for the attention of Agents and VARs. That means that there will be price competition, commission shopping, and other things that the providers do not want to have to deal with right now.

The only providers who can afford to be exclusive right now are vertical cloud providers and cablecos - both have an almost exclusive product to offer.

Everyone else is selling the same stuff - MPLS, SIP, backup, managed network security, blah, blah, blah. That means the Channel can shop around. And as you can see from the ecosystem diagram, there are a lot of places to shop - VAD, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, ILEC, CLEC, Cableco, MSP, Rackspace, Web hosts, Parallels, ITSP's, and so much more. And Agents can just partner up with a VAR or MSP to sell their own services, leaving the CLEC's out to dry.

It's a matter of control. Do you want to build yourself a business with white-label partners (like VAR Dynamics) or do you want to trust that the telco that is having trouble delivering telecom services reliably will be able to provide you and your customers with unparallelled service delivery of cloud services?

We'll see. In the mean time, be nicer to the Agents. They may be all you have left.

What Competition?

2012-05-01T20:19:21Z

In this article about independent ISP's fading away, CenturyLink talks about competition of ILEC DSL - from cellular 3G/4G, muni Wi-Fi, and cable. There's also fixed wireless in some ares from independent ISP's, but that is mainly in areas without competition.

But competition is a myth today. VZ is co-marketing with cable now. The Duopoly isn't even competing any more!!!

According to Akamai's State of the Internet report, "The U.S.'s average connection speed is 5.8 Mbps -- a 14 percent increase from the previous year." That's thanks to FTTX and DOCSIS 3.0 mainly.

BTW, Customers prefer flat-rate pricing in study after study.

"In other words, the broadband cap may have less to do with managing congestion on Comcast's data network than with making over-the-top video services like Netflix and Hulu unattractive for heavy television users who are the most lucrative customers for Comcast's paid video services."

Would we even have a cap if we had true competition? Probably not.

With consolidation in the telecom industry, there aren't many players left. In many markets, it's ILEC versus cableco, except where they are co-marketing! Lots of OTT (over-the-top) but I'm not sure how much longer they are allowed to survive.

In the B2B space, lots of consolidation, but cablecos are buying up market share with cheap pricing. It's interesting, because I'm not sure how much longer the nationwide CLEC will be relevant. Everyone is competing for the same dollars: federal and state government, Fortune 5000 and Enterprise, and the multi-location customers. These are a limited supply - maybe 110,000 customers??? But in the small business space there are 5.2 million businesses with under 20 employees! Who services those accounts? That's where all the growth and opportunity is. Unfortunately, broadband and VoIP have cannibalized the pricing structure in this market. It will have to be a bundle of more than data and voice that wins here.

It's also expensive to market and sell to this space - and to support this space. That means it has to be more than voice and Internet, so that the monthly recurring is high enough to rate the work required. We'll see who steps up there.

What's With Wireline?

2012-04-27T18:32:20Z

Wireless replacement - now over 30% of households - is leading to the demise of landlines, but it is also hastening the regulation of ILEC's. Quite a few states have deregulated ILEC's and landline service.

This same decline is also affecting DSL. Naked DSL was supposed to help shore up broadband revenues by releasing the customers from having to purchase a POTS line, too. VZ is reversing course on that, just a year after offering Naked DSL for $25. Some of that offer had to do with the FCC asking the ILECs for a cheap broadband offer to bridge the Digital Divide. Now VZ is saying no DSL where FiOS is available. They need to make folks take FiOS service (to make the metrics look good for Wall Street).

The teclos have basically lost the broadband battle. They stopped rolling out FTTx - at least FiOS and U-Verse. 75% of broadband additions in 2011 went to cablecos.

What I can't explain is the 8.9% decline in wholesale landline revenue for VZ. Maybe CLEC's have been impacted by VZ's anti-competitive nature. Does that mean that resale CLEC's are seeing a decline too? Probably. Cablecos will own customers under $500, so that means a lot of T1 customers have become cable customers.

Two Other Things to Ponder

Cloud and Managed Services as the Next Big Thing and TV Cord Cutting

TV Cord Cutting is rising. Early adopters really like the TV anywhere anytime. They also dislike the huge cable TV bill, which is expected to rise to $200 by 2020. Cord cutting will speed up the price increase in TV because less subscribers means higher price. Content creators like Disney/ESPN pay more and more for sports and that is passed down. In this cycle, the higher the price, the more cord cutting - and around we go.

LEC's losing wireline revenue are looking to Cloud and Managed Services to make up for it. There are a few problems with that. One is that the sales process is so different for CMS. Two, the ILECs have tried e-Commerce and similar services before. (Didn't take.) Three, if the provider cannot deliver telecom services without problems, what makes them think that customers will trust them with more complicated and mission-critical services?

There was a period of time when CTO's would not consider Sprint or Qwest for MPLS because Sprint has an uncertain future and Qwest was for sale. The point is that if the CTO's don't trust your company, they won't buy from you.

It's a quandary.

As CLEC's once competed heavily on teh commodity Dynamic T1, they will now compete on MPLS services, which will (again) drive down revenue and margin. I don't see how this works out for most CLEC's - billion dollar companies or not. Paetec and Intermedia (ICI) were billion dollar CLEC's that had to be sold. It's about having a brand, differentiators, unique services, WOM and executing on a strategy flawlessly to counter the wireline revenue decline.

US Government Suing AT&T for Fraud

2012-04-26T14:49:58Z

Is Fraud rampant at Ma Bell?

ARS wrote an article titled, AT&T collected millions from taxpayers in fraudulent charges, US says. "AT&T improperly received millions of dollars from a government reimbursement fund by ignoring fraudulent use of the IP Relay call system provided free of charge to hearing- and speech-impaired US residents, the US government alleged this week."

Another item ripped from the headlines:

DOJ Sues AT&T For Not Keeping Scammers Off Deaf Phone Service

CRN reports, "The Justice Department this week filed a lawsuit against AT&T on the grounds that the carrier did not do enough to keep international swindlers from abusing a government-mandated service that allows deaf people to make free calls to hearing people via text message over the Web, Reuters reported this week.... The FCC reimburses carriers for the service, to the tune of $1.30 per minute. However, the Justice Department claims that the vast majority of callers using the service were fraudsters in other countries, and that AT&T did not take measures to stop this from happening."

"This claim was initially made in a whistle-blower lawsuit against AT&T brought by a former call center employee, according to Reuters".

Too big to fail also means too big to know what is going on.

This is but a symptom of how poorly managed these big companies are. It's all about the stock price. When you have $64 Billion in debt, you need to watch the stock price or your debt starts costing more. One percent is $640 million extra. But you can be a slave to it or everything else falls apart.

AT&T is facing competition from VZW and the cablecos. If the SpectrumCo deal gets approval from the FCC, VZW will be co-marketing (read colluding with) three MSO's to take revenue from AT&T. All the mass markets are flat: voice, TV, cellular and broadband. It's a game of take-away now. That's expensive. So customer acquisition costs increase. Subsidies on cell phones go up. Everything goes up except ARPU! Do you see the problem?

If any other cellco - T-Mobile, Sprint, MetroPCS or even Tracfone - could get its act together, it would add pressure. The MSo's have their act together and are winning the battle for the SMB space under $500. The CLEC's used to own this business, which meant wholesale revenue for the ILEC's (Qwest, VZ, ATT), but even that revenue will start to decline as less T1's are sold by the CLEC's.

Wireline revenues, especially DSL, are in decline. Where does the new revenue come from?

Windstream and CenturyLink made big moves to counter their wireline shortfalls. What have the RBOC's done? Mainly gone cellular including spectrum acquisitions. Comcast bought content (NBCU). It's a race.

Short note for CLEC's: if wireline is declining and the sub-$500 customer is going to cable, what are you going to do?

One last note: VZ already had a union strike and had to settle. ATT is in the midst of negotiating a CWA union contract. How does that help or hinder future growth? For VZ, VZW and FiOS are non-union shops.

Get Off the Agents' Back

2012-04-12T21:48:50Z

These were my thoughts on the 2011 CPZ that I was a panelist on. These are my thoughts as a reaction to the latest CPZ.

Surprisingly, not everyone read my post about how the whole telecom eco-system is shifting. Agents, Masters, Carriers and Cloud Providers are all going to experience a Shift.

Did you ever see Shift Happens?

Considering all these factors - Quota, Debt, declining revenue, pricing pressure, and flat markets - the future does not look bright.

Most of the people who were talking on the CPZ 2012 video about transactional agents are not actually agents and to my knowledge never have been.

Does a subset of Agents shop masters? Probably. On the other hand, I know masters who shop to sub-agents with "I'll give you another point or two to go with me." Part of this is due to the weight of quota on the Master Agency business. Master Agents are under a tremendous pressure to hit quota to keep the support level and sustain the commission revenue at its current level. So don't get mad at the Sub-Agent when Masters are doing it too.

Value and Telecom

The whole Industry talks about VALUE, but can they describe it? No. Our Industry has been a series of me-too, arbitrage bandits selling the same thing: UNE-P, Integrated T1, SIP Trunking, and today it is MPLS. It's all just similar looking and sounding services. How does an Agent or a Prospect tell the difference?

Branding is non-existent in our space, except for the Duopoly of ILEC and MSO. You create value with branding. Other value comes from benefits and differentiation. We are lacking the Differentiation.

Without value, it becomes a commodity. Commodities are price shopped. Tell me the difference between any two Internet T1's or any two SIP Trunks.

Carriers are Unhappy with Agents

Just because Agents don't act like you want them to doesn't mean they are all in the wrong. You built this current eco-system. Now you want the ship to turn on your say so. Easier said than done, pal.

Truthfully, have you done all you can to give Agents the tools they need to sell your product? Not to be repetitive, but have you established your value statement? Do you know who the target market is? Do you know what triggers the sale? Who is the actual buyer? Answer those questions first.

The Industry wants the Channel to go upstream, except they don't. By that I mean, the carriers want revenue. Period. It's all about quota. While they might want an Agent to sell MPLS, they aren't turning away T1 business either. However, they want the Agent to turn away from that business to go upstream. Yeah.

Keep in mind that it might be that the marketplace doesn't want to go upstream either.

Right now, Cable is doing an excellent job of disrupting the market and stealing business with cheap loops.

At a CLEC training, it was stated that cable would own the sub-$500 business. It sounded like they were conceding it. The cablecos will become the de facto ILEC's. I have no idea what the ILECs are going to do. Only the 2 RBOC's have a cellular business. And CLEC's will probably run into too many problems to continue to sell network access.

In that same training, the CLEC stated they wanted Multi-site, multi-access business. Unfortunately, everyone wants that business. Masergy, Smoothstone, EarthLinke, Megapath, Netwolves, Wind, CenturyLink - just to name a few. To hear carriers talk, I guess, MPLS is the new Integrated T1 (in every way). They say there is more margin in it. No there is not. There is more revenue per customer, but they will have to give away margin to (A) hit every site and (B) win the business in a hyper-competitive marketplace.

No one buys the way most service providers sell either. That's why the carriers are always searching for Consultative Sales Professionals. The whole industry sells what they want - and it is followed up by a series of me-too. Just because one CLEC is selling Managed Security does not mean that the marketplace wants it or will buy it or that it will want it delivered that exact way. It also doesn't mean that the next eight CLEC's or service providers need to market that same offering. Do we know what the marketplace is expecting?

How Things Can Shift

One thing that could cause a big shift is if Tech Data becomes a Master Agent. With TDMobility, they already have the platform and are selling cellular in a Master Agent model. Plus by offering mobile device management, TEM and all that hardware, they have caught up to the big Masters. CDW could become a Master Agent if they wanted to - and they might have to in order to sell more hardware.

Dell could become a Cloud Provider. As it stands now, they are an MSP Enabler. And Dell is selling CDN now! It will be interesting to see what Ingram and SYNNEX - both betting on cloud services for their future - do to not have to compete with Dell head-to-head, while also competing with Tech Data.

I don't think that most telcos will make the shift to managed services and cloud successfully. It's labor intensive. It doesn't scale like telecom. They think they can automate everything, but that only works for cookie cutter stuff. Plus they can barely deliver telco services without a headache. I think MSP's will win this war. Any company that can integrate apps (like CRM and invoicing with Exchange and Sharepoint) will be successful. If they partner with VAR's who can handle the on-going maintenance and support that all this technology will require, they win big.

Can the Channel change to become Trusted Advisors? Probably not all of them. Selling Cloud is different than selling telecom. Period.

The Channel basically sells replacement services. Here are some examples: VoIP for POTS: SIP Trunk for PRI; Ethernet for T1. Each transaction is replacing like for like. Even MPLS is just a replacement for Frame Relay, ATM and IP-VPN.

That is why selling Hosted PBX and other cloud services are so challenging: It is not a simple replacement. It's not like for like.

The sales process for selling replacement services is pretty easy. When the sale becomes about business process change or fork-lift upgrades (like Hosted UC or Virtual Desktop), the sales skills are different. The sales cycle is different - and longer. Provisioning takes longer. Ultimately, commission payments are much later.

This is really important to remember.

Selling Cloud and Managed Services will not just be more of a challenge, but it may be less satisfying. Why? Transactional sales types are motivated and driven by quick hits and a lot of ink in a month. Extended sales cycles are less motivating to this type of sales person.

Moreover, as commissions decline with the price decreases, agents have to sell more and more to maintain their revenue goals. Shifting to new products, new sales skills, and a different sales approach will be a huge leap, especially without training, a financial cushion, a deep desire for change, and vendor support.

Agents are not FARMERS! They are Hunters! They do not do Account Management, cross-sell or upsell to the base. Smart agencies will higher a couple of farmers to work the customer base and perform account management.

All of this makes me wonder who will be the Agent of tomorrow, who will be grooming accounts and performing consultative selling of complex solutions to their customers?

USTelecom Wants Forbearance for all ILECs

2012-04-09T18:36:04Z

We once fancifully debated if the ILEC's would LET the cablecos get ahead just so they could get out from under regulations. This was 2006. Apparently, that was the plan.

USTelecom is an organization made up of ILEC's. The org has filed for forbearance at the FCC on behalf of its members. Not certain THAT is legal.

The petition [pdf] comes from the ILEC executives "essentially telling the FCC that it's time to wake up and smell the coffee--"many rules were adopted in a different era, long before the advent of broadband networks or the creation of the public Internet."," as JSI describes it. JSI continues with, "it might be time for a new regulatory regime as even the 96 Act is becoming less and less relevant with each new cord cutter and cross-platform conglomerate. The petition is also in line with the White House and Congress' push to get the FCC to clean house, and "the Commission's commitment to eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements.""

The petition states, "Forbearance is warranted because the rules have been rendered obsolete by technological and market changes. From a technological standpoint, the Commission's legacy telecommunications regulations are ill-suited to facilitating, and in fact hamper, broadband deployment." I'm not sure that's true. It hasn't hampered DSL; the LEC's have by not deploying, switching to fiber and, quite frankly, arrogantly thinking that they were still a Monopoly. In every respect, the trouble with ILEC's is NOT the federal (or dwindling state) regulations. The trouble with the ILEC's is a Monopoly Mindset.

They don't choose the best technology nor do the deploy technology well. Mismanaged spectrum just being a symptom.

FiOS failed because the numbers forecast was wrong. Basing it on 50% penetration was a mistake. Not considering that it would take 2 techs all day (or longer) to install triple-play FiOS. Thinking that the CPE - all 4 pieces of equipment - would be cheap to install.

Let's also look at three bigger problems for ILEC's Pensions, Unions, and USF. By shifting to a cellular and entertainment companies, the RBOCs - AT&T and Verizon - are moving toward a non-union shop. AT&T is dealing with CWA union contracts right now - and VZ had to deal with them last year (along with a strike). They want to eliminate the union. Cellular, entertainment, cloud and outsourced services mean less Union liability - and less pension liability. The ILEC's - Embarq, VZ, ATT, Qwest - are sitting on a chunk of pension payments. It's just another example of bad planning by the executives running these corporations. I know in my life time I will see one of these companies file BK papers. With all the debt they have - $109B just for the Big 2 - mixed with declining revenues, pension payments, probably healthcare costs, union troubles and hyper-competition, the C-Suites at the ILEC's - all of them - are as ill-suited to run them as Hesse is to turn Sprint around.

A Forbearance petition is nice, but it won't solve any of their problems.

With USF Reform, the RLEC's - and even some ILEC's (FFW+C) - will be in even more trouble. Not just competition and dwindling access lines, but decreasing government subsidies for those access lines PLUS a requirement to build out broadband, which means CAPEX! It is not a pretty horizon.

As I read this paragraph all I can think is: Monopoly MIndset is the problem, not FCC regulations. And claiming that it is regs that have created the current quagmire is sticking your head in the sand.

"Indeed, the most recent survey by the Center for Disease Control (which has been relied upon previously by the Commission) has found that more than 32 percent of households have completely "cut the cord" and have abandoned their wireline phone altogether. .... At the same time, incumbent carriers compete against a host of providers, including cable companies that offer service to at least 93 percent of American households, already serve approximately 20 percent of the residential voice market, and are the primary provider of residential broadband. Under these competitive circumstances, the current outdated regulatory regime imposes unnecessary costs on a limited subset of competitors to the detriment of these competitors and consumers alike." Plus it's a Duopoly. There isn't much competition in the Broadband space. It's DSL, cable or 3G.

Comments or Oppositions Due: April 9, 2012 TODAY>

And of course COMPTEL has filed opposition.

Category 10 (Service Discontinuance Approval Requirements); Category 9 (Rules Governing Notices of Network Changes); and Category 2: (Open Network Architecture and Comparably Efficient Interconnection Requirements, All-Carrier Computer Inquiry Rules and the Structural Separation Rule) would really make CLEC life miserable.

Think about this when thinking about regulations being the issue: "According to the Telecommunications Industry Association, wireless has become the preferred voice-services option. Wireless revenue in 2012 is forecast at $335 billion, while all other forms of fixed network voice revenue will only total $176 billion ($132 billion for wireline, $38 billion for broadband access and $6 billion in cable/television revenue)." Is it regulations doing this or our mobile culture? De-regulating ILECs will mostly hurt SMB who are the profit center of ITSP and CLEC businesses.

One last point: voice is being replaced by Skype, G+, Facebook, IM, chat, SMS, and other types of communications. These innovations were NOT brought to you by the telcos NOR will any innovation because they have a Monopoly Mindset. And that mindset screams: "We want to make more money off our old plumbing without having to morph, change or innovate!"

There's no fixing that.

What is the Market Expecting?

2012-04-01T17:46:30Z

Tuesday I was in Vegas at the Channel Partners Conference mainly for the TCA events. At the TCA Channel Chief Summit, Tiffani Bova of Gartner and Rauline Ochs of IPED Market Bridge Alliance presented research. The take away for me was in perspective.

No one buys the way most service providers sell. That's why we are always searching for Consultative Sales Professionals. Because the whole industry sells what they want - and it is followed up by a series of me-too.

Just because one CLEC is selling Managed Security does not mean that the marketplace wants it or will buy it or that it will want it delivered that exact way. It also doesn't mean that the next eight CLEC's or service providers need to market that same offering.

The market is consuming technology differently. It enters the business via the consumer. About 70% of devices are owned by the consumer in the business environment. Only about 30% are paid for by the business. That means support for devices either isn't available or is imposed on the IT staff by the employees. That's a confusing (and expensive) way to handle it. Don't you agree?

Most of what Bova and Ochs presented had to do with mobility and Cloud. Mobility is a huge problem for most CLEC's as the model for cellular sales is unprofitable - whether they sign a wholesale, agent or MVNO contract - the margin on cellular is thin to none.

And what is prompting Cloud? Two things: ubiquitous broadband and a mobile workforce.

Ubiquitous is really hyperbole because even with 3G, 4G and wi-fi, you can't get bandwidth everywhere and even when it is available it is shoddy (like at tech conference hotels).

Mobile workforce means a couple of things. One that more businesses have accepted remote workers - whether at home locally, across the country or across the globe. The economic downturn (and all the consolidation) has translated into businesses having less workers but expecting more work. This means working at home, while on the road, etc. Hence, not just email, but the application data has to be available from any authorized, connected device. That is the beauty of Cloud.

Cloud changes the way business is done.

Read that again, because that means it has to be sold that way.

It's easier to sell email, because everyone has email and it is almost a requirement. Selling unified messaging gets more complicated. Unified Communications and Collaboration is just too complex of a sale, of an explanation, of an implementation, of a deployment. That's where the service providers want to go, but they neglect the challenge of the sale. There is a lack of the story, the sales triggers, the value proposition, the WHY, and of course the on-boarding.

One thing Bova pointed out was that VDI (virtual desktop) sales have grown in EMEA (Africa and Mid-East) while have stagnated in North America. One reason: VAR's have too big a quota with HP or Dell to take a 500 desktop refresh to VDI instead of selling 500 desktops. Not just the quota for the discount, but to sustain Gold level service. It's the same with Cisco, Microsoft, etc. VAR's will keep selling what they sell for 2 reasons: First, to maintain the current level of vendor support to continue to service current clients in the manner that is expected (or even contracted). Second, making the changes to shift business to an MSP or all service model is complicated and expensive. Bova suggested firing clients and employees to create the business you will need in 5 years, but that's easy to say from a consulting seat. Not so easy from a business owner perspective.

When EarthLink told its channel partners in Tampa that it only wanted Multi-Site multi-access opportunities, it didn't come right out and say that it would stop selling T1's, but that was the underlying message. (And ELNK did tell me that 1GB and 10GB private line, even ON-net, was not what they wanted to sell.) That's one way to start planning for where you want to be. Say no while being specific about what you are looking to offer.

As a whole I don't think the service providers have any idea what buyers are buying or why. Just because you WANT to sell MPLS with security or Hosted UC&C or whatever, doesn't mean that prospects will actually BUY it (that way).

When does something become a commodity? When the customer buys it directly online.

For non-commodity services, you need a well trained sales force that understands the brand, the value proposition, and the target. As an industry we aren't there yet.

I'm going to leave you with that.

Coming soon two posts: (1) Master Agents are like Pharma Reps. (2) Tech Data versus Master Agents.

Are Telcos Outside Their Delivery Zone?

2012-03-12T13:52:44Z

The ILEC's were really good at delivering a monopoly TDM-based dial-tone product. And later got very good at T1 and T3. Was that the extent of the research that the old AT&T Labs could provide? DSL, while slower than cable modem service, does provide for good, cheap broadband, despite its limitations in distance and speed.

Now the ILEC's are going Cloud with Terremark, Savvis, and roll your own. This is shocking to me, since I was there in 2001 when BellSouth (and other ILEC's) first attempted data center and e-Commerce. At the time, BellSouth had partners like EMC to deliver the managed servcies and IBM for the data center. But this isn't something they knew how to sell or how to market. Certainly, the market has changed to make it easier to sell, but are the ILEC's the right partner for Cloud?

I look at how they are struggling with declining wireline revenue (and mounting debt). They have been grasping at TV for consumer triple-play; tech support for broadband customers; and managed services. A managed router from AT&T is configured and managed in Singapore! The slight time difference affects support. Plus it is by email mainly.

Is that what Enterprise customers want?

Then I look at the Telecom Subpanel talks on Cybersecurity, in which reps from AT&T, Comcast, Century Link and MetroPCS were featured speakers in front of The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing Wednesday morning on the cybersecurity threat to the nation's communications networks. The hearings are about regulation of security of the communications infrastructure - who will have oversight, what will be required, and the like, to be added to a bill. Like that will help. Sheesh!

And, of course, the carriers do NOT want to be regulated. In fact, CenturyLink is petitioning the FCC to forbear from "dominant carrier regulation and the Computer Inquiry tariffing requirement with respect to its packet-switched and optical transmission services" for those services subject to the regulations. "CenturyLink states that, because of recent mergers, its enterprise broadband services are subject to different regulations depending on which CenturyLink affiliate - Qwest, Embarq, or CenturyTel - previously provided (or didn't provide) those services." Whatever. They do what they want anyway. There isn't any FCC enforcement (of merger conditions or forbearance conditions).

That sentiment brings me back to cybersecurity and regulations. It would be kind of joke really. The FCC took over 10 years to come to grips with VoIP, how would it ever regulate something as fluid as security? And what would enforcement look like? Would it be something like CPNI?

There are over 1000 VoIP providers in the US plus the numerous LEC's, cablecos and cellcos. Does anyone really think that enforcement is a priority at the FCC?

So back to telco cloud services.

On the one hand, I like that Savvis is still Savvis and Terremark is still Terremark (without any telco infection, no offense). In fact, "Savvis is poised to lead in Gartner's Magic Quadrant for Public Cloud Infrastructure as a Service in addition to Gartner's Magic Quadrant for Cloud Infrastructure as a Service and Web Hosting," according to Seeking Alpha. Given that every data center company from TELX to QTS have launched Cloud services, not to mention every CLEC, TWC (via Navisite) and most VAR's, would you rather sell IT services from an IT company or IT services from a telco?

The whole "I don't want to be regulated, I don't want to be a common carrier" is fine if you understand that to stop being a monopoly, you have to stop acting like one! You HAVE to provide customer service. You can't finger point when handling Managed Services or Cloud Services. You have to ANSWERS to solve problems for your customers.

I think that Cloud is going to be a bust for telcos, in general. They have been the pipe, the plumbers, for so long -- and even if you want to reach up to Layer 7 (to grab the money) doesn't mean you have the ability or will be able to deliver on it. Going into cellular was just another Layer 1 project.

Let me point out a few things. Many fiber companies (or divisions) can't find or price out their fiber. A cellco has mismanaged its network to the point of disrupting users and its 4G future. An ILEC has done such a poor job planning Metro Ethernet that it has run out of VLAN's in two major metros!

Cloud may turn out like FTTH and Telco TV: an investment that didn't work out. Or it may work out despite what I think will be glaring holes.

Churn Predicted by Social Influence

2012-03-02T13:54:45Z

Found this preso this morning on twitter: Social Network Analysis for Telecoms. "A major North American telecom sought to identify factors driving customer churn. We applied social network analysis over several billion call records. We found that customers with a cancellation in their frequent calling network churned at twice the monthly rate."

Social Network Analysis for Telecoms

Most people have 3-5 frequent callers. That explains the Circles and Friends&Family plans.

When one of their frequent callers cancels, they are 7x more likely to leave. Now that's Influence.

What are you doing to retain customers (or re-acquire them)?

One Really Big VAR

2012-03-01T19:50:57Z

Presidio Acquires BlueWater is the announcement.

"Presidio, Inc., a leading provider of professional and managed services for advanced IT solutions, announced today that it has acquired BlueWater Communications LLC, a provider of high-performance, holistic IT infrastructure solutions to growing companies. The senior executive team at Presidio also welcomed industry veteran, Bob Cagnazzi, CEO of BlueWater, as the new Chief Executive Officer of Presidio, Inc. effective immediately. Presidio is owned by American Securities LLC and management."

That makes for a very big VAR. Presidio has acquired Coleman Technologies, Ficomp, Networked Information Systems (NIS), Solarcom, and INX in the last few years, growing into a $2B VAR and one of Cisco's largest partners.

It seems to be about scale. How big can we get. How large can we grow, before we are almost worthless to the marketplace.

The big consulting houses like Accenture have their place - the Global 5000 treat them like a cousin - but boutique consulting shops have been growing for the last 5 years. Verticals and Specialization have their place.

Does this mean that Presidio will now compete against the carriers themselves? The carriers all want to sell managed services, but the hurdle to that is that VAR's sell managed servcies too. Yet carriers think their future is tied to VAR's.

It will be interesting to watch to see who wins. VAR's only use telcos for network services (dumb pipe). I don't see that changing any time soon, especially with the way telcos play with the accounts that the Channel brings in. Again, it will be interesting to see.

What About Selling Cloud?

2012-02-21T15:55:02Z

At The CPZ, the rest of the panel were cloud guys (VAR's and Hosted UC). This is a snippet of the conversation where the panel is talking about how transactional telecom sales are dead, long live the Cloud!

People deemed LD dead years ago (like when MCI went BK), too, but there are still a large number of agents and resellers making money on LD and pre-paid calling cards.

Until TDM is retired, agents will still be selling POTS, DSL and T1 - and making a living doing so.

Here's the problem with selling Cloud (other than the fact that cloud providers keep screwing commissions to agents):

The sales process is different! Selling replacement telecom services is not the same as selling managed services (like cloud and IT). How different? The conversation, script, questions and prospecting for IT is distinct. The buyers may not be the same. Sales triggers are dissimilar. It requires sales and product training.

I worked for a Novell VAR from 1996-1999. The sales trigger was when something broke. In telecom, the sales trigger is usually the end of the contract, because the penalties for leaving early are huge. Other sales triggers for telecom: expansion, moving, or a shift in IT (i.e., more bandwidth needed because of VoIP, Citrix or backup).

Dave makes a point about "do you want to be in that cheap stuff or do you want to do good by your customer". Do agents want to be in "the cheap stuff"? No. Our commissions are based on MRR. We would like it to be as high as possible. However, we don't make the prices, the carriers do, so why blame the sales force?

In some cases - like government agencies -- the prospect is looking to reduce the telecom spend due to budget constraints. If I don't do it, someone will.

Back to being mad about the prices falling:

Agents didn't commoditize telecom, CLEC's did. It started with the LD penny wars and has continued every since. In 1999, when Covad, Rhythms and Northpoint all IPO'ed, all 3 selling DSL nationwide against each other without any differentiation was another hit. DSL (broadband) created pricing pressure on the T1 business, which continues to erode to this day. Moreover, the Integrated T1 became a commodity long ago, again due to a lack of CLEC differentiation (branding, innovation, product design and marketing). SIP trunking came along as a "cheaper" alternative to a PRI. See how that goes?

Today, we have $200 Covad T1's and $2 per MB Cogent bandwidth adding to the price compression. So who's fault is it? (I won't even get into the companies that went through BK and really screwed up telecom with that arbitrage mindset or the fact that even as revenue diminishes debt is increasing.)

When you look at the Hosted VoIP space, there isn't a whole lot of differentiation either. There are so many players, it is confusing to the buyers and sellers. It doesn't help that so many of the providers don't know what they want to be or who they want to target. "Wholesale, white-label, retail - whatever! Just sell something!"

In the video, I make a point that no sales person is going to walk away from revenue. Well, most carriers don't walk away from revenue either - even bad revenue (no margin revenue).

Let me give you an example: there is a Hosted UC shop that really only wants UC customers, but doesn't really say that to its Channel. When an Agent brings them "small" hosted PBX deals, it is frowned upon -- but they don't say No (to the revenue).

If the carrier doesn't have a target market - like AboveNet and Smoothstone do - then it is selling against everyone everywhere. That's just stupid. Service Providers need to start thinking like fiber and cablecos: ON-Net is Good. Type II is bad.

As we get into Cloud services, we are talking bloody red ocean - everyone and their brother is a player: web hosts, data centers, MSP, VAR, telcos, cablecos, CLEC, ITSP. Yeah, that will make it easy to sell. How would an agent even do a competitive analysis?

If you want an Agent to sell your stuff, answer these questions:

Who is buying your stuff right now? (Be specific: vertical, NAICS code, buyer title)
Why are they buying it?
Why are they buying it from you?
What's your special sauce? Or where's the beef?
What questions are you asking to get the conversation going?
What was the sales trigger for the buyer? (in other words, what made them want to buy?)

If you can't answer these questions (or want to give me BS answers), this is your problem! Don't blame the Channel.

Has Verizon Stopped Repairing Copper?

2012-02-17T21:08:18Z

Over and over, I am hearing that Verizon has given up on copper. From repair issues to DSL to stripping copper out when FiOS is installed, the story seems to point to VZ looking to forget its copper plant.

in a discussion on LinkedIn about SLA's, one agent had this to say, "The absolute WORST cases I have seen have all been in the northeast where Verizon's copper is concerned. Verizon seems to have made the decision to put all efforts and funds behind their fiber build out (a good thing) but have completely sacrificed the quality behind their copper services such as T1. If your copper T1 goes down in New York, you might has well throw your hands up in prayer, because that's the only thing that will get it fixed."

Another commenter wrote, "Verizon in some places is actively ripping up copper as they lay fiber because they are not required to resell fiber to CLECs and ISPs at wholesale rates." This has been widely reported, because VZ doesn't want the expense of running to networks - copper and fiber. Plus the fiber doesn't have to be shared and the copper does. The copper means competition. Fiber means they just have to worry about cablecos, who quite frankly are kicking their butt.

Wholesale used to be a healthy business for ILEC's. Today, neither cablecos nor ILEC's want to wholesale anything. In fact, clients of mine in VZ regions have a lot of issues.

For example, "We had an outage about 3 weeks ago that lasted more than three days. This also affected [another local ISP] as I spoke him last night about the current outage. We [both have] a bunch [of customers still] out of service as well. They have been out of service since Monday. The last outage caused an exodus of customers and this one will do the same. Our guys have put in tickets, called to escalate many times. .... no one at VZ will listen. Ever. They simply close the tickets that we open."

It's a systemic problem - widespread - from the C-Suite down - the story has been that every company -- even wholesale customers - are the enemy and the Union and on-union workers must do everything they can to make it uncomfortable unless you are a direct VZ customer.

We have the case of a BK CLEC who had recorded conversations with VZ employees soliciting a customer who was down saying that it wouldn't happen if they were with VZ. [This has been a problem with both RBOC's since I got into telecom in 1999.]

Verizon faces up to $400,000 in fines after New York's Public Service Commission accused the company of not making service repairs in a timely fashion.

What do you do when the RBOC doesn't want to wholesale, doesn't want to repair, and just looks at the bottom line and the few metrics that Wall Street analysts can understand??

Many states don't even regulate the ILEC any more, so what do they do? It becomes the job of the FTC, the FCC and the court system. Talk about a deck stacked against the customer!

When our underlying telecommunications structure suffers, so too does our economic growth.

here's 2 problems with a fiber only strategy for an ILEC:

One, fiber goes out with power, so no 911 or dial-tone when the lights go out.

Two, the installation period for fiber is wicked long. Copper can be installed within two weeks. Fiber takes months. That hurts businesses. I have one moving in 3 weeks and to get 20MB of bandwidth he has to wait months. That won't work.

Ever think that just nothing in this country makes sense any more?

In the discussion about SLA's, the conclusion is to convince your clients to buy redundancy: 2 pipes. That's nice in theory but not in reality. The thing is that you have to set the expectation that if Internet or VoIP is integral to their business operations, no SLA is going to save them, redundancy and business continuity planning will. Otherwise, an outage will be a disaster that they have not planned for. It is not IF, it is WHEN.

FCC Rules on Rural

2012-02-07T14:53:20Z

Following Congress sending him a letter, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has finally issued a ruling on Rural Call Completion [pdf].

ATIS and NTCA have been hounding the FCC as complaints went from about 100 a month in 2009 to over 1000 a month in late 2010. A group of them sent a letter to the FCC [pdf], which stated:

"the Rural Representatives identified a variety of concerns, including but not limited to: (1) calls that ring for the calling party, but not at all or on a delayed basis for the called customer of the RLEC; (2) calling parties who receive incorrect or misleading message interceptions before the call ever reaches the RLEC or the tandem it subtends; (3) calls that appear to "loop" between routing providers, but never reach the RLEC or the tandem it subtends; and (4) incorrect caller ID that displays to called parties."

Many carriers point the finger at their underlying network operator - another carrier that they dump the rural traffic on. MagicJack and Google Voice have a reputation for not completing calls to high expense rural areas.

The underlying problem is Inter-Carrier Compensation. Rural telcos not only get USF funds to operate, but also get many pennies per minute for call termination. In comparison, RBOC's usually charge $0.005 for termination - a half a penny per minute. As traffic to rural increased due to businesses like FreeConference.com, many carriers including VoIP providers and cellcos, chose not to complete calls to those areas. It was getting expensive.

The FCC rules, "If carriers continue to hand off calls to agents, intermediate providers or others that a carrier knows are not completing a reasonable percentage of calls, or are otherwise restricting traffic, that is an unjust or unreasonable practice prohibited by section 201 of the Act."

All of this could be solved by reform to the Inter-Carrier Compensation but the RLEC's and State Utility agencies are actually holding that up (and likely will for years). Just another example of (A) Arbitrage, which the telecom industry is built on; and (B) an industry that doesn't want to adjust to the Internet and its ripple effect on its business model.

Verizon Puts the Move on Video

2012-02-06T15:26:03Z

After Verizon's CFO sais that FiOS was a poor economic decision for the company, I would think video would not be on the VZ radar. The FiOS TV service is so expensive to deliver that Frontier raised rates over 70% when it took over former VZ FiOS territory -- and then decided to switch all the TV over to DBS.

Comcast buying NBCU was a little different, but cablecos have owned channels before, especially sports channels (MSG, YES, BayNews9).

Maybe the TV-cord-cutting crowd is scaring the cablecos, despite the rhetoric to The Street. Content is expensive to license and to deliver. And getting more expensive all the time. Meanwhile more video is being delivered as bits and bytes by Netflix, Amazon, the networks (USA, Comedy Central, ABC, CBS and CW - all have shows that can only be seen on-demand from thier website) and apps (HBO-on-the-Go and TWC Anywhere, for example). This means that TV revenues WILL decline.

How does the Duopoly make up the money and pay off the $250 Billion in debt it has accumulated????

Metering is one way. It increases the ARPU.

BTW, I find it interesting how the RBOC's have basically given up on DSL.

So VZ is now partnering with the Coinstar subsidiary, Redbox, to launch a video streaming service to compete with Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.

This means that ATT will HAVE to go after DISH. Why? The wireless spectrum primarily but also DISH owns Blockbuster, satellive TV service, and Slingbox. Telco is a me-too industry. Unless ATT is going to abandon theh consumer space, relinquish it to the cablecos, it will have to make a move soon.

While Echostar owns Hughes Communications, the DISH company bought up spectrum from DBSD and Terrestar that DISH plans on utilizing to offer a hybrid satellite/terrestrial mobile broadband service. Today, DISH has a market cap of almost $13B, while Netflix is at $7B. Since spectrum is finite and like real estate, the extra $6B seems like a steal. Consider that AT&T bought spectrum from Qualcomm for $2B. That spectrum, which, according to Huffington, "Qualcomm stands to make a handsome profit on the spectrum. It paid $38 million for one slice of nationwide spectrum - the former UHF channel 55 - in 2002, then another $558 million in 2008 for UHF channel 56 over New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco." Qualcomm was using that spectrum for FLO TV, which failed. It consists of six D-block and five E-block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band, giving AT&T post-transaction holding between 6 and 80 megahertz of spectrum below 1 GHz. Holding is key, because, like all cellcos whining about spectrum, AT&T HAS spectrum it has not deployed.

AT&T says it needs the spectrum, especially if VZW gets the SpectrumCo deal to go through whereby VZW buys all the AWS spectrum from the cablecos. So do the Rural Cellular Carriers. Makes DISH a big target for acquisition. However, Charlie Ergan still owns 51%.