RAD: The Telecommunications/UC space is changing. It is a lot different than when we both got in during the heyday of the 90s. How will these changes affect channel partners?
CEO: The evolution of Cloud offerings in the UC space is changing the fundamental structure of the type of partners that are required for a successful channel. The classic VAR's face the challenge of a major change in becoming solution focused, not product focused. This also entails a change in the type of technical talent required within the VAR's to execute on their new solution offerings. A market that for more than a decade had only 5 to 10 top providers, now as the shift to cloud continues, has 30 or more providers with UCaaS offerings. With this, VAR's that navigate the change will have to focus on providing solutions that incorporate integrations to other work flows, CRM's and related solutions. On the positive side, it does allow VAR's to truly become solution providers by having the ability to easily offer multiple Cloud solutions, finding the best fit for each prospect."
Tracey continues, "As a result of these changes, many of the providers turned to alternative channels like Master Agents and Value Added Distributors (like CDW and Jenne). This opened a larger market reach than the classic VAR channel, but has compounded the problem of finding resources to deploy and support these solutions as they grow in numbers and scope."
"As we sit today there is a lot of uncertainty in the channel and lots of scrambling for solutions. Channel partners that can adapt and overcome will have plenty of opportunity and the re-occurring revenue streams should provide many opportunities for growth beyond that of the traditional VAR."
"What is really needed to succeed is the technical talent and execution of a top VAR, with the exponential sales growth opportunity of a channel like the Master Agents built for carrier services."
RAD: What have you seen that is a positive indicator?
CEO: "We see growing demand from the providers for an answer to their execution and support issues. The demand for organizations that specialize in UCaaS/CCaaS and have the required skilled engineers to successfully design, deploy and support these solutions will see tremendous opportunity. We also see growing demand for technology in the business space that can improve companies' ability to compete in their markets. We see increase value put on UCaaS and CCaaS solutions as a key for organizations to succeed. It opens lots of opportunities for those organizations that are ready to take on the challenge of these changes."
RAD: How do you see the Contact-Center-as-a-Service space evolving?
CEO: "I see the CCaaS space evolving ahead of the UCaaS space. Contact Centers are often the heartbeat of an organization and its key factors - revenue and service. The more organizations realize that Contact Center productivity is a driver for their business, the more demand we see for the business applications/features to be built in to the Contact Center solution. The line between CRM and CCaaS is blurring as more companies demand integrated access to multiple communication channels and data sources. And today it's true not only for bigger business players but also for SMBs."
"There's a very limited number of competitive premise-based Contact Center offerings in the small-to-medium market. Cloud solutions are stepping forward bringing top-level Contact Center functionality to this market along with the reliability, scalability, continuous software advancement and next to zero hardware requirements. Smaller contact centers now can afford to operate on the same level as business monsters with less risk and more opportunities to grow."
Tracey adds, "We see some big SaaS CRM platforms presenting themselves as Contact Centers to play as CCaaS solutions but they are still lacking lots of expected Contact Center functions and they lack the ability to route interactions from multiple channels effectively. They face a step climb to catch up to the rapidly expanding feature/application sets of specific CCaaS solutions. At this point in time with some many of the CCaaS players offering integrations into these big SaaS platforms and having open API's for continued advanced integrations. It just makes more sense for CCaaS to be integrated into complete CRM than the opposite."
Tracey remarks, "When it comes to the channel, CCaaS business is a great source of MRR revenue. The average CCaaS deal will have a Top Line of 4x to 5x in comparison with UCaaS, and it is still a field with fewer players. MSPs, VARs and Agents who see the writing on the wall about declining top line revenue in their carrier business should really start considering CCaaS as an alternative."
]]>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!
]]>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.
]]>Was it just October that Windstream let its small business customers go? At that time didn't they tell the partner community that they only wanted deals $1250 and above? Didn't they cut commissions on Paetec customers?
This is a company that owns Allworx but pushes Mitel and Avaya on alternating months. They run both Metaswitch (and took on more seats on Meta with EarthLink) and a Broadsoft. So now they buy a 6th platform: Broadview's proprietary one. (I hope they kept the chief developer or someone will be searching through code for notes for months.).
Do you know how expensive it is to run 6 platforms? Or even 4? Ask Vonage how much that costs (they run 4).
WIND wants to compete head to head with RC, 8x8 and Vonage in the OTT market. Interesting because data demonstrates that the average OTT deal is $400, well, below the $1250 floor. Even Broadview admits to an ARPU of almost $1000.
I will get emails and calls that I am negative. Chris will ask why I can't write something nice. I'm not being mean. I am observing a schizoid strategy. Partners cannot turn their business model quarter to quarter to suit the whims of a vendor. It doesn't work that way.
A $5.4 Billion annual revenue up against $5B in debt. No more equity in CS&L, the REIT they spun off which renamed as UNITI Fiber. "Operating income was $515 million. The company reported a net loss of $384 million." This is a company that pays out healthy dividends to keep its stock afloat. It has debt payments as well, while acquiring EarthLink and Broadview (and before that data centers it then sold off.)
I hope they can at least take a note from EarthLink: Point yourself at a vertical or two and get good at it. EarthLink had captured the retail vertical with a focus and product fit unseen in the CLEC world. Windstream needs to do more of THAT.
Keep the ELNK Retail division rolling along. Leverage the Broadsoft Hospitality product to find a way to take Hospitality back from the cablecos. The REIT (CS&L) is on a tear buying up fiber and chasing E-Rate. That is a sound strategy.
I wonder if, like CenturyLink, being borne from a RLEC just makes sound strategy tough. So many fat years with USF monies pouring in and no competition that when the spigot went dry, competing just isn't in the DNA. Hint: hire Dabble Lab. Get Creative. Try stuff. Take real input.
SD-WAN is not the panacea that everyone is hoping for. If SDN is implemented the way LNP and TTU is now, oh boy! A few agents were on FB discussing ZTP (zero touch provisioning) as the end all. I remember Microsoft Plug and Play. It took years to get right. It will all depend on the CPE and the SDN implementation. And I am not counting on it. [And that is just CPE ZTP, not the handsets and UCaaS or Office365 or other software deployment. Just the WAN and CPE.]
Broadview has 20K customers, of which 7300 are cloud users. That isn't scale. That is less than one-third the of customers 8x8 has. Vonage has 650K seats; Broadview has 182K active users. Scale costs money. Scale requires talent. Scale demands process and procedure. We'll see. They didn't even finish the EarthLink integration so this should be fun.
**CRN - click through 10 slides just to read a half page story on this site! What a mess!
]]>At EC17, Amazon launched a self-serve cloud contact center. (Once again Amazon took software it created and used internally and made it a commercial product like S3 and AWS.) The partner for this was Twilio. This seems like a slight to Vonage, who owns Nexmo, a twilio competitor.
There is a rumor that Amazon is looking to buy Vonage. There was an offer from Oracle to buy 8x8, so there are folks outside of telecom looking to buy VoIP companies.
A couple of ITSPs, Skyswitch and RingByName, are offering integration with Alexa. Alexa makes a nice speakerphone. Again this is a nice marketing gimmick but it doesn't solve any real business problems.
Vonage's market cap this morning is $1.4B, the same as 8x8 whose stock price is more than twice Vonage's. I wonder how much longer these two companies can keep the machine of growth going. Keeping up 24%+ growth every quarter is a grind. It begs the question what happens when that slips to 19 or 20 percent? They probably won't be stand-alone companies at that point.
In some ways, Amazon is like Twilio; it doesn't want to be a phone company, but it wants to capture as much value in that space that it can without being one. It would be smarter for Amazon to buy Twilio, but the market cap is twice that of Vonage. What does that say about VoIP stocks?
]]>The real buzz came from Amazon that launched Amazon Connect - Customer Contact Center in the Cloud. GE Appliances is one of Amazon Connect's initial customers (and shared the stage at EC17 with them). Last week, they launched contact center tools. Before that, they launched Chime, a web conferencing app.
"Amazon Connect is a self-service, cloud-based contact center service that makes it easy for any business to deliver better customer service at lower cost," according to the website. It got a lot of coverage (telecomp and techcrunch, to link but 2).
Chime was launched in conjunction with Vonage who will be handling the consumer and small business market. Level3 partnered with Amazon on Chime for Enterprise, which partners will get to sell soon.
In both cases, Amazon is entering a crowded field with a self-service, low priced offering that hangs off of their massive computing infrastructure. It is mainly price disruptive, but that doesn't mean it won't shake up Wall Street which will re-adjust valuations for the likes of Cisco, Citrix, Genesys and Avaya.
GENBAND partnered with IBM Watson for AI chatbots in its Kandy wrappers. The Kandy wrappers are pre-packed programs like a customer service chatbot that can answer FAQs and detect when the caller is getting agitated. It then takes the call transcript and sends it to a live rep, who if all the back-end works would be able to take over the call in continuum. The demo was great. Implementation will be difficult, but I would like to see Florida Blue jump on board and give it a try because they have horrible customer service systems (maybe on purpose).
West showcased the new version of Spark with Hybrid Voice.
Sprint had a robot running around their booth but I don't know why.
Counterpath demonstrated its new capabilities for what was once just a softphone. Now there is a good amount of reporting and analytics on users and calls. One user experience across multiple platforms (phone, tablet, laptop, Mac, Android, PC). It layers on top of existing UC, so Broadsoft providers can get better reporting, analytics and user experience without having to upgrade their investment. Counterpath also added a Salesforce plug-in so that interactions inside the Bria app can be captured in a CRM record. And you get screen pops!
BTW, "Voice is still a customer's number one choice when dealing with a customer service issue." [twitter]
"Cloud computing: Are these the hurdles that trip you up? More companies are using cloud-powered services, but it's not without pain. Here are some of the common complaints." Interesting read on ZD.
One thing that seemed to be a theme: User and Customer Experiences Matter.
]]>After 15 years, 2000+ providers can only take a 28% handhold in the market?
The growth rate of Hosted PBX (HPBX/UC/UCaaS) has always been a hopeful bad guess. And it will continue to do so because too many people, companies and dollars have been invested thus far for any analyst to turn on the sector.
There are 4 major problems with the UC Market.
One, PBX sales have declined about 3% per year. Even Avaya going bankrupt isn't going to speed that up. Not only do people trust boxes; they are cheaper in the long run. Single location businesses, which is most of them, don't have a PBX problem that UC solves. There is a current Product/Market MisMatch that needs to be examined.
Mobile UC may get more traction. Or a simple PBX like Dialpad or Fone.do. Gary Kim writes that the market may be too small. At ARPU of $400, it takes a bunch of sales to move a needle for a company like CenturyLink, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast or Charter.
Two, I wrote this last week. Any 15 year old product needs a re-fresh or re-think. We are overdue for a Re-Think. Slack was a re-think, but that strays to the edges of what UC is. So does Cloud Contact Center. And these companies want to be everything for 1-1000 employees. This isn't Pasta or Rice. This is technology.
UC is Change. People hate change. The Channel doesn't sell Change; we take orders on replacement services. Harsh but mainly true. There are exceptions of course, but the general rule is that agents are transactional. Even Inter-Connects aren't excited to go sell a cloud service. MSPs will if it is white-label and can be bundled into their package, but that falls into POTS Replacement more than a full-blown UC deployment.
Three, HPBX has 2 camps of buyers: POTS replacement sold as cheap as possible and actual UCaaS. Where do you think most of the market is? Right, cheap VoIP.
Now if I am buying cheap VoIP, am I also going to pay for a backup circuit or SD-WAN or any other service enhancement or assurance? Unlikely -- or I wouldn't be buying cheap cable broadband and the cheapest OTT voice!!!
If the buyer spends more on bandwidth, has a backup circuit, they are likely going to buy UC as BC/DR and that isn't cheap VoIP.
The fourth Big Problem: There are far too many providers! Telarus represents at least 37 HPBX vendors. Other masters have at least 25. How does anyone differentiate/ stand out/ position in a marketplace where the cloud broker has a choice of 2000+ providers?
This becomes a problem for the providers who enter into a Price War (seats cratering to below $15 each) and a SPIFF War, where providers are literally buying sales.
One of the most successful HPBX providers, 8x8, is up for sale. This move comes after a recent re-branding as a Global UCaaS provider.
Are the owners (the 8x8 founders still own most of the voting stock) looking to exit? Or is it that the machine to keep bringing in 20% growth quarter after quarter is grinding down? I just don't know who would pay $1.5 Billion for 8x8. VZ payed $1.8 for XO which owned fiber assets. WIND payed $1.1B in an all stock deal for EarthLink, who also had a bunch of fiber. Fiber gets a bigger multiple than VoIP.
The other thought is that what if $300M is about all the B2B annual revenue you can get?
From a recent discussion about Amazon Chime: there are approximately 100 million phone/conferencing lines in North America. If Amazon Chime with Vonage can hit a 5% share of this market, that equates to 5 million subs. At $5/seat/month, that is $300M incremental revenue opportunity for Vonage. That would be a needle mover for most UC Provider, considering 8x8 is at $225M in annual revenue now.
The emphasis has always been on multi-location and mid-market. That's why "41% of larger enterprises are using cloud UC services." Now everyone is focused there (upmarket). However, the bulk of the businesses are single location small business (20 million of them). That means a new product bundle is needed to attract this crowd. Many thing that this sector will be mobile only with an auto-attendant in the cloud.
When you look at the large number of messaging apps, at some point, one of them - Slack, Messenger, WeChat, HipChat - will hit the right bundle of functions to steal mass appeal. Not yet, but maybe soon.
]]>One big story was Google Fiber laying off and the CEO quitting. I tend to agree with Beranek on this: Google didn't want to be a network operator. They just wanted to scare the Duopoly into building out broadband networks, so that Google could get more page views a la YouTube.
People don't understand how much obstruction the Duopoly has in telecom. From lobbying to lawsuits, the phone and cable companies hate competition. They do everything they can NOT to compete. So given an upstart - Google Fiber or Covad or a muni network proposal - they go to town throwing up hurdles to success. Big is Bad for Consumers. Period.
The Election: Not getting political but it looks like Net Neutrality will be rolled back. Soon the 4 cellcos will make it look like 1996 again when it was Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe and DELPHI. Walled gardens are coming back. This will make it harder for any new entrants to get a foothold.
Devices: It was the year of device panic from Samsung's blowing up to Apple eliminating the earphone jack. Add in the mix, the hacking of the IOT devices used for DDoS attacks against Krebs and DYN. It was 100K hacked cameras and DVRs that took down the Internet in October. It is only going to get worse. For a society obsessed with guns, why don't we protect our information and devices? The Info War is going to set you back.
BTW, did you see that Quest Diagnostics was hacked? 34,000 accounts. Would you want your medical history online?
It was the year of hacks. Just ask the DNC.
Hacks and outages all year.
A lot of noise about Fake News (true), self-driving cars (almost) and SD-WAN (soon).
It was the Year of Uber. Of all the ride sharing apps including Lyft, Uber seemed to dominate. Close to 25 ride sharing apps have been funded to date, but it is Uber that leads the race, despite famous battles with cities around the globe.
VR got bigger (just as Scoble!) But like Augmented Reality, other than entertainment and early adopters I have no idea who is paying attention.
IOT was big. Everyone is still trying to figure it out. Or more precisely figure out how to monetize it for themselves.
Speaking of which, IAAS has blown up with one clear winner, AWS. At $13 Billion in revenue, it is all of the profit that Amazon shows. Rackspace, a rival, went private this year when a private equity firm acquired them for $4.3B. Like Dell, going private allows them time to pivot without the stock market beating them up. And speaking of Dell and pivots, what a year they had buying and selling. If the smoke ever settles in Austin, it will be an interesting story.
Artificial Intelligence is something I tend to think of as analytics and data mining. (We went from Big Data to AI.) From Siri to Alexa to IBM Watson, AI is entrenching in our world. A doctor friend uses Dragon Speak Medical Edition to transcribe his notes into the EHR system. That's the kind of tech we need.
Microsoft added its Skype real time translation service to cell phones and landline. In a global economy, this will be a game changer. And this is on top of Skype4B crashing past 50 million seats.
What else did we see a lot of? UC&C or UCaaS. So much of it. But when you have 2000+ companies plus thousands of resellers trying to gain some ground, the noise level will go up. Most of that noise is pure hype, spin and hullabaloo. More on that in another post.
Is there anything I missed? Is there something you are watching? Let me know.
]]>Telcos spent billions on both fiber and TV services. [Verizon reportedly spent $23 billion rolling out FiOS since 2004, some of it from rate hikes, some from government subsidies.] Unfortunately, by the time telco TV, like Windstream's Kinetic, is widely available cord cutting is accelerating.
From DSLR, "Telco TV and satellite TV providers saw record pay TV subscriber losses last quarter, according to the latest analysis by Leichtman Research. According to Leichtman, the pay TV sector lost about 210,000 subscribers last quarter, though this figure is dramatically lower than the 430,000 subscriber net loss stated by Wall Street research firms like SNL Kagan. While traditional cable providers "only" saw a net loss of 90,000 video subscribers last quarter, the telcos were particularly hard hit, losing 375,000 video subscribers last quarter -- compared 45,000 during the same quarter last year."
In the broadband realm, "Cable companies added a net of 775,000 broadband subscribers last quarter, compared to a net loss of 150,000 broadband subscribers during the same period," writes DSLR. [see chart here]
For consumers, it is all about the Internet and smartphones, according to Pew.
Telcos didn't want to get into the DSL game. Mainly to protect a highly profitable T1 business. The same way they threw obstacles at Google Fiber, the LECs threw obstacles at the newly minted DLECs - NorthPoint, Rhythms and Covad. Sure, some of it was incompetence on the part of the DLECs and GF, but the hurdles kept tripping them up. After they all filed bankruptcy, the RBOCs decided to get into the DSL retil game, to the chagrin of the independent ISP, who was finally making money on DSL. Undercut by the vendor, many ISPs failed or limped along for years, which affected many small businesses as the ISP was usually the local computer expert and Internet Provider. This was something that the LEC could not provide: personal service to the small business. To this day, the Duopoly can only supply commodity service with almost non-existent support. As they have gotten bigger and bigger to take advantage of scale, the support to the small business has suffered.
Small business is 99% of the businesses in America. Yet every provider wants to go up market.
There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers). Over 50% of the working population (120 million individuals) works in a small business. But it is under-served by the Duopoly.
From the FCC's 2016 Broadband Report:
Think about those numbers. VZ spent $23B. Other telcos spent billions. The FCC donated billions in BTOP, BIP, ARRA, CAF, CAF II and USF funds to the effort to build out broadband across America. Private companies (PCOs, ISPs, WISPs and CLECs) have invested hundreds of millions more. Cable dropped bilions. Yet not everyone has good Internet????Or a choice of more than 1 ISP?
I have to wonder where this goes. The telcos spent billions to get triple-play just as that bundle becomes undesirable. They now have to build out fiber to stop losing broadband subscribers, so more hundreds of millions. At a time when their debt is High - and the pies for TV, broadband and voice are stagnant. Even cellular has peaked.
They are all chasing Enterprise, which I imagine means 500+ employees. There are only 30K businesses in the US with more than 500 employees. So Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink and Windstream are fighting desperately over the same 30,000 businesses and government contracts. With VZ acquiring XO (approved today); C-Link acquiring Level3 (ugh); and WIND Buying EarthLink, that leaves Zayo as the sole big indie.
What happened? Bad short-term decisions that cost jobs, revenue losses and more CAPEX spending than if they had just done it from the beginning. To still see announcements from the telcos about Gigabit deployments in select cities is just plain sad. The monopolies that were the Bell companies re-constituted but lost their edge. It's like they don't know how to compete at all. They just lean on their brand and hope for the best.
EoC wasn't widely enough deployed and sold. Yet everyone is banking on SD-WAN, which will likely just make SLAs crumble.
Small business has suffered from this mess -- and further with the mega-mergers and consolidation. Small businesses - all businesses - rely on telecommunications to do business. The Internet is vital to our economy. Let's hope we don't stifle it anymore.
]]>Inteliquent was formerly known as Neutral Tandem, with an initial business plan to be an alternative tandem switching platform for CLECs and VoIP Providers. They re-branded after they bought Tinet adding network to their strong voice service. They sold Tinet to GTT in 2013 for about $55M. Inteliquent has been focused on voice and competing pretty well against both Level3 and Bandwidth.
"As the nation's highest quality provider of voice and messaging interconnection services, Inteliquent is used by nearly all national and regional wireless carriers, cable companies, and CLECs in the markets it serves, and its network carries approximately 21 billion minutes of traffic per month." They added some CPaaS capability as well. I have to wonder 21B in minutes and just $90M in annual revenue?
Zayo spun out its voice business as Onvoy. It was acquired by GTCR. Onvoy has acquired ANPI, Broadvox and Layered. Now it will combine Inteliquent into that mix.
These deals have made partners and customers nervous. The uncertainty seems to be a normal now.
These integrations are smooth and often have some customer facing problems. (See Frontier for how that works.) There is so much M&A that as a partner it is difficult to choose who to present to your client as a vendor.
]]>Level3 has a bad quarter financially and the C-Suite says, "Don't look here! Look over there!"
Also, bankers! Besides the C-Suite, Bankers are the only ones making money on these deals. So yeah that want more M&A - as overall M&A activity in 2016 is down. Truthfully, bankers have ruined telecom with all this M&A.
Yesterday I was at a TelAdvocate event in Tampa. No agent there thought it was a good idea. Emails from other agents are basically panic. We just got done with integration. Please not another one!!!
What do they get with this merger? Two very opposite cultures. One is mainly an RLEC. One is mainly a wholesaler. Not does that match up?
Level3 fiber is everywhere that Qwest is with its Genuity, Gobal Crossing and own long haul fiber. L3 could probably do a better job selling colocation and data center that C-Link.
The big picture is that you would have a larger telco with massive debt -- and declining revenue. Since CenturyLink has debt of around $20B with about $18B in revenue and Level 3 has debt of about $10B with $8B in annual revenue, the combined entity would have $26B in revenue and $30B in debt. Plus years of integration work, layoffs, confusion, and eventually lost revenue and a lousy organization.
As brokers of telecom, we want choice in the marketplace. This doesn't achieve that.
I am hoping this is just a banker balloon. Both stocks moved up, so maybe someone was just doing some day trading.
]]>Both VZW and AT&T are experiencing a saturated cell phone market. AT&T lost a record 268,000 postpaid wireless subscribers last quarter. The DirecTV arm is replacing the U-Verse TV service but "While DirecTV added 323,000 video subscribers on the quarter, AT&T reports that the company lost 326,000 TV subscribers during that same period," according to DSLR. "AT&T's fixed-line broadband growth was unimpressive as well. While AT&T added 156,000 U-Verse broadband subscribers, it lost 161,000 DSL customers, for a net loss of 5,000 broadband subscribers on the quarter."
When you look at ARPU for video, in December 2014 it was $102.66 rising to $118.09 in 3Q16. IP Broadband ARPU (DSL) in the same period went from $44 to almost $50. You can only raise prices so far to increase revenue. You need more subscribers, but that is clearly NOT happening. So you go wider and buy another vertical. It is funny to watch Ma Bell follow cable's lead. A long time ago, AT&T owned cable under the AT&T Broadband brand. Now, it is playing catch up to VZ and Comcast.
TW owns movie studios, DC Comics, The CW TV Channel, HBO, TBS, CNN, a publishing house and 10% stake in Hulu. It will make AT&T on par with Comcast which owns NBCU.
This administration just doesn't know how to say NO to mergers (one notable exception was TWC-Comcast). There have been too many, leaving consumers with less choice -- and corporations with too much power and size (and debt). [If this deal goes through, AT&T will have about $175 billion in debt -- more than many banks!
A quieter but big merger: Phone maker VTECH is buying SNOM! In a move similar to Mitel buying Polycom (which a PE firm saved from happening), VTECH decided to scoop up German IP Phone maker, snom. All about Scale, right? Bigger is better. Just ask Mitel after buying Aastra.
And the third acquisition was assets only. "Endstream has completed the acquisition of the assets of Mainstream Communications, a provider of wholesale voice termination," reports Channel Vision magazine.
]]>We have seen consolidation in the contact center space - ININ-Genesys and others. It isn't over yet. There are too many players in the marketplace, and for right this moment money is still cheap. Better to buy your competition than try to beat them.
More predictions: "Global unified communication and collaboration market expected to grow at a CAGR of 12.3% from 2016-2020," says a report by Technavio.
So 8x8 and Vonage are at 600K seats each. 8x8 has 45,000 Customers according to June 2016 investor prezo with ARPU at $399 now.
Windstream and BroadSoft team up to bring customized Virtual PBX to hospitality market. WIND is a confusing deal. They own Allworx which they never discuss. They push MITEL and Avaya - and they have a Broadsoft. That is a lot of platforms to know, sell, manage, support.
Comcast Business Services revenue increased 17.0% to $1.4Bn with small business accounting for ~75% of revenue and ~60% of growth. Voice makes up 7% of Biz Services Rev..
Megapath launched the latest Broadsoft offering called MegaPath One with the usual collection of bells and whistles. MegaPath also rolled out Skype for Biz integration.
ITSPs are so worried about Microsoft eating their lunch that they integrate with it or add some Microsoft to their offering, like MegaPath and Velis4. Even TelePacific is joining the Microsoft CSP program. WIth the DSCI deal approved at the federal level, there should be more news out of TelePacific.
RingCentral doesn't break any stats out anymore as they just play with GAAP and performa stylized finance sheets. "In 2015, nearly 30% of RNG Office new bookings coming from up-market customers with at least 50 users, up from about 20% in the year ago period." Now they are bringing in customers with 100+ seats. All the UCaaS players are going upmarket, where the ARPU is higher, to cover the cost of sales and support.
RingCentral (RC) did make one big change: previously RC distributed phones to customers by reselling third-party phones; maintaining inventory, handling A/R and warranty processing, etc. Now they made a deal with Westcon to distribute phones to RC customers with RC acting as an Agent of Westcon and getting a referral payment per order. Westcon will now maintain inventory, handle A/R and warranty processing.
Jabra Survey Finds Small/Medium Businesses Driving Productivity through Unified Communications. "Between a third and two-thirds of all small/medium businesses (SME) will either add unified communications (UC) or replace existing systems with UC within the two years, according to a recent survey by Jabra."
Cisco Spark, Microsoft Skype4B and other services are putting pressure on the OTT VoIP players. "RingCentral and friends are now facing challenges from Microsoft and many other titan-sized technology experts. The proof is in the pudding, and these VoIP experts must continue to show that they can deliver healthy business results in head-to-head competition with true giants," states this article. Because all the noise right now is about Skype (and Slack started doing TV commercials), the market is wondering if stand-alone VoIP can continue to afford to buy market share. VoIP players are giving free phones, SPIFFs, free months of service, just to get a customer. The cost of that acquisition is being questioned on the stock market. OR it may all be a fluke and stock speculation going awry.
There were a large number of service providers in the space of UC&C - from Fuze, RC, the Cloud Comm Alliance members to the LECs to the other numerous ITSPs. Then softswitch vendors decided to become service providers, too. Broadsoft BroadCloud; GenBand Nuvia; Alianza Cloud Voice Platform; and Metaswitch MetaSphere Cloud Services are all competing with their customers and making it easier for new entrants into the already bloody ocean of Hosted VoIP. (Now even enterprises can be an ITSP).
Everyone is pushing up-market, but Cisco recently did a study on small businesses. The study found "on the IT front, a majority of small companies (86 percent) are considering the use of cloud-based unified communications (UC) systems as a possible solution to their communications needs, replacing their more traditional premises-based counterparts."
"Yet unified communications as a packaged service, despite its relative maturity, remains far less than universally adopted, particularly outside of larger enterprise accounts. A recent survey of more than 400 enterprise and SMB IT decision-makers, performed by UBM Tech for XO Communications, found that only one-third of organizations had fully embraced UC. On the other side of the spectrum, a separate survey performed by Osterman Research for ConnectSolutions found that about as many IT decision-makers (26 percent) and business deci-sion makers (39 percent) are either "somewhat" or "very fearful" of migrating to UC. Nearly half of those surveyed admitted that they don't fully understand the full impact UC would have on their organizations. These fears and trepidations come despite the fact that 71 percent of those surveyed by Osterman believe there are "significant" or even "enormous" benefits that can be realized from the deployment of UC." [from ChannelVision magazine].
Mobile UC is going to be another segment of the UCaaS pie. Mast Mobile, Apple, Google and now Verizon's One Talk. You know that Sprint could have driven this years ago when it first announced integration into the Broadsoft switch for 4-digit dialing to cellphones. But Sprint just couldn't get out of their own way. It would take months to deal with them for quotes, sales sheets, etc. It would be scary to think how long deployment would take. But now VZW is doing it - all in-house - with their Broadsoft.
]]>You can get some more detail about the service in the PR HERE.
SAAS companies frequently use the Freemium model (like Dropbox), but UCaaS providers usually forget that Voice is just an app in the bucket of UC. So this was an interesting marketing move by a pretty progressive company.
If you are having trouble seeing the flash mp3 player, you can listen at Soundcloud or download the mp3.
]]>Now, NICE has a new song: "As one company, the two leaders form the industry's first end-to-end cloud contact center, complete with world-class WFO and Analytics Organizations of all sizes can now take their contact center into the new era of the Experience Center."
Both ININ and Genesys were partnered with Microsoft for a layer on to Skype for Business. No one knows how that will shake out. Maybe MS buys Five9s or someone else in the cloud contact space to do it all under one roof. One roof isn't really the MS way. But who knows.
Avaya is feeling a lot like MITEL, being left at the altar and all. Their PE firms - Silver Lake Partners and TPG Capital - must want their money back. They took Avaya private in 2007 for $8.2B! That is nine years. Long time. Maybe MITEL wants to get hitched. But then Shoretel will have no suitor. (Remember Mitel tried to buy Shoretel in 2014.)
It looks like going private is the new thing. Ask Dell, Rackspace et al. When money is cheap, private equity firms like to buy shiny objects. Then they make a mess of them but still want to sell it for more than they paid.
]]>