More Video, Voice Peering Forum, Part 2
January 2, 2009
This is the second half of the interview with TMC’s Rich Tehrani.
Looking Ahead to ‘09, Part II
December 26, 2008
Here’s the continuation of my recent post on xchange magazine’s blog. You can see part one of this post, Looking Ahead to 2009, here.
Given the credit crisis (and my theory that the current situation will weigh on telecom well into 2010), I believe we will start to see a realization by Wall Street and those that have the capacity to lend, that top-line growth by itself is meaningless without margin/profit growth. If you look at recent M&A, it was driven and debt funded around that testosterone-driven top-line growth. We are now watching many companies struggle with integration, and some may end up in Chapter 11 as a result. The other problem all CLECs face in the United States — none of us are “too big to fail” in terms of our federal government. So as much as the “big” CLECs like to beat their chest in superiority over smaller CLECs — we are all basically a gnat on a rhinoceros’ ass in the scheme of a $3 trillion global telecom economy.
If I were an agent of any sort, I would focus on carriers that have competitive sustainability.  You can first start by looking at who survived the 2001-2003 telecom implosion without going Chapter 11 or Chapter 22. These firms obviously have something going for them, and more than likely it is discipline, cost control and focus. Now, my bias under full disclosure is that I am a fiber bigot. Worse yet, I am a metro fiber bigot. From analyst reports, PE firms with lots of cash and lenders — there is a high interest in enabling established, healthy companies with a track record of organic growth that own local fiber optic infrastructure well beyond the headlines of the global credit crisis. PE firms looking 5-10 years down the road now realize that real broadband is over fiber and that any and all known and unknown applications will initiate or terminate over a local fiber optic network. Some analysts are readily reporting wireless having a place, but it will not come close to the fiber optic infrastructure which is close to the customer.
I believe agents need to reassess their models to serve and transition from a volume driving activity to delivering growth margins to those companies which have great control over their network costs. I have spoken with agents for the type of business we have – all data/IP, 20 megabit or higher enterprise customers with a minimum of $5000 MRR — and I have yet to have an agent show us a model which beats a direct sales force. Below 20 megabits is the traditional low-end game of lowest price, drive-by selling and a costly back office/customer touch where margins are quickly eroding as basic bandwidth demand increases as copper becomes an insufficient medium. There is an abundance of price discounting channels available within this lower segment.
My opinion is that the sales agent of the future is not an agent but a partner — an integral part of the organization. This type of partner is loyal and not waiting for the next best commission deal to come along. This partner understands how to sell into an existing price point to hold it or grow it… not lower it.
Happy holidays from the Straight Shooter. If you’d like to email Dave, click here, or post a message below. You can also subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed.
Looking Ahead to 2009
December 23, 2008
Happy Holidays to you and yours. While we all take time to be with with friends and family, I thought you would enjoy a look into what is in store for CLECs in ‘09. This is an excerpt of my regular series on xchange magazine’s blog.
There’s a question that keeps coming across my email lately, especially from agents. It’s asked in various forms, but the long and short of what people are wanting to know is this: “how long do you expect the regional and national CLECs to keep their heads above water?”
I have no doubts that additional consolidation will occur. Sadly, the next round of consolidation will occur around marginal CLECs. Who are marginal CLECs?
Marginal CLECs will be those CLECs that are faced with pricing pressures as the result of not having an ability to differentiate services or hold a margin due to reliance on ILEC infrastructure. In addition, those ILEC-dependent CLECs carrying debt greater than 3x EBITDA, in my opinion, may be forced into the situation as credit markets remain elusive and expensive. For example, in the State of Missouri, the ILEC has been relieved to raise prices to CLECs. In general, Special Access costs across the United States will increase as the ILECs are no longer obligated to provide volume or terms. The ability for ILECs to raise prices of wholesale pieces and parts via forbearance is not an issue of “if” just when – that’s reality. Most CLECs relying on Type 2 ILEC will not see costs decrease as prices decrease.
If the telecom meltdown of 2001-2003 is any indicator of how the current market conditions may force behavior, the squeeze could be on. It is important to note that the current downturn is not network-centric as in 2001-2003, but it is deeper, wider, sinister and global.
Some unsophisticated CLECs will make an attempt to survive by lowering prices believing that lower prices will stimulate growth and cash flows. I agree with this somewhat but only to the extent you have 100% control over your network operating costs and by increasing volume you get economies of scale for better margins. However, the more a CLEC relies on the ILEC for pieces and parts, the more likely the CLEC in a price lowering market cannot achieve margin sustainability. The ILECs are not benevolent and will not lower their wholesale pieces and parts unless the law says to do so. We saw many companies go bankrupt 2001-2003 by lowering prices as a single, unsophisticated strategy.
Season’s greetings from the Straight Shooter and the entire AFS team. If you’d like to receive Dave’s posts direct to your inbox, click here. We always welcome your questions and comments. Email Dave or post a message below.
Gomer Pyle: Part Deux
December 15, 2008
Page A18 of the December 11th issue of the Wall Street Journal, The headline read: “Political Favors at the FCC.” Sub heading: “Kevin Martin orders up another rigged spectrum auction.”
Surprise, surprise, surprise … yet another game of Beltway insiders and money-people playing do as I say, not as I do. We have a two tier society in America. The top tier is for the greedy Real Smart Guys (RSGs) and politicians with perceived power and money and the second tier, for us common folk. It is rare a top tier villain goes to prison, but us second tier folks, don’t jaywalk or you will end up in jail.
The Readers Digest version of the story is that FCC Chairman Martin (R) and the venture capital RSG John Doerr of Silicon Valley fame Kleiner Perkins, worked back channels to place terms on the spectrum auction whereby the spectrum in an auction would not be attractive to dominant carriers. The article mentions under the “conditions” placed on the spectrum at auction it would sell for $50 million. However, economists estimate the value to the federal government coffers of $3 billion without said conditions.
Kleiner started a company to pursue this spectrum auction called M2Z. As the articles states:
“M2Z and Mr. Doerr are essentially asking taxpayers to subsidize their attempt to start a new telephone company. Mr. Doerr will have profited from what amounts to a government subsidy via a rigged auction. And if the start-up fails, don’t be surprised if M2Z attempts to sell licenses that it has acquired for a song and reap a windfall.”
For those that want to point political fingers, I suggest you read the article. Both parties are just as guilty as they are in our credit crisis. And, by the way, a company called Frontline also funded by Kleiner Perkins and headed up by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt(D) failed in a similar scheme this past January.
Now for my soapbox. There will be no outrage over this. There will be no criminal charges. Why? This is top tier money play of influence and power at the expense of the second tier of our society. This is about greed. It’s not about fairness, transparency and equal opportunity. It’s a classic “non-nod, wink-wink inside the corrupt beltway” event.
My advice to CLECs: stop lobbying Congress and the FCC — they don’t give a rat’s ass about what is best for America. Sure they will meet with you and your highly paid lawyers to act interested, but unless you are driving party politics by stature and cash, you are nothing. By the way, what may be good for America may also not be good for CLECs, for the record. But in my naĂŻvetĂ©, I actually fantasize that our elected officials and their appointees like Chairman Martin can be objective and not deal in dishonest dealings or dollars.
My fellow CLECs, spend your beltway dollars on infrastructure to gain your independence from ILEC infrastructure (UNE’s, Special Access) and the FCC.
What do you have to say about it? Let Dave know. Email the Straight Shooter or add your comments below.
For the record
December 12, 2008
If you haven’t read or at least skimmed the House report, DECEPTION AND DISTRACTION: THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION UNDER CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN, I encourage you to do so. On Wednesday I wrote in the blog post “Hate to say ‘I told you so’” that non-ILECs should stick to focusing time and money on infrastructure.
For the record, a few years back, I had a meeting with the president of Comptel at our offices. We discussed openly and candidly the lack of success non-ILEC lobbying efforts has had inside the beltway. I will keep the majority of the conversation private. However, I did provide a bold strategy for Comptel to consider. I suggested that Comptel issue a press release stating that the non-ILECs represented by Comptel have given up and that the ILECs and cable companies have the FCC and Congress in their back pockets. Comptel members are no longer going to fund lobbying efforts to effectuate competition. Comptel would no longer encourage membership to lobby independently as well. Comptel, the last remaining non-ILEC membership group, surrenders to the FCC and Congress. I suggested that doing this will get Comptel and its members all sorts of Congressional hearings. But alas, my suggestion was ignored.
As you will find in the Martin allegations, the game is rigged. It’s a house of mirrors. As we are slowly learning in America, justice, opportunity and fairness is a function of how much you can afford to spend whenever our government or politicians are involved. Just look at the picking the winners and losers on Wall Street by Congress in our financial crisis. The responsible companies are getting punished while “the too big to fail” real smart guys (RSGs) get bailed out. There is a bit of poetic irony with the banking firms selectively being bailed out – all those years banks picked winners or losers for investment not on the basis of merit, accomplishment or experience, but by whom you knew or were referred by.
Has America lost its direction? I would like to hear your opinion.
Sound off now by posting a comment below or by shooting Dave an email.
Hate to say “I told you so”
December 10, 2008
As Gomer Pyle would say: “Surprise, surprise, surprise …”
For years at telecom conferences and most recently on this blog, I have heralded the waste of time, money and effort spent on lobbying the FCC or anyone else inside the beltway. I have referred to such expenditures on lawyers and/or lobbyists as money entering a large vortex. The only winners in the vortex are the lawyers who create arguments amongst themselves in an endless circle only to bill you with no results. Non-ILECs have no voice inside the beltway. I say spend your money on infrastructure rather than legal fees and lobbyist bills – because infrastructure gives you ILEC independence.
I can sum up things relative to non-ILECs receiving a fair hearing inside the beltway as appalling at best and at worst bordering on corrupt. Yesterday, a report was released entitled: DECEPTION AND DISTRACTION: THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION UNDER CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN. A few excerpts for my loyal readers:
“Transparency was plainly not a priority.”
“Chairman Martin withheld important and relevant data from the other Commissioners … “
“The Chairman’s office appears to have ignored evidence that rate payers have been over charged, while the companies providing Telecommunications Relay service has been over compensated, potentially by as much as $100 million per year.”“Chairman Martin manipulated report findings and policy direction … when he ordered that a report to Congress previously issued by the Commission be rewritten with a completely different outcome ….”
“There is a climate of fear and intimidation at the FCC.”
See for yourself. The full 110-page report is available online.
Now, to be fair to FCC Chairman Martin, he has yet to respond. In addition, given the change of administration, there is certainly an air of cowardice in issuing this report in December 2008. That said, and I will say it again, non-ILECs have no voice inside the beltway; spend your money on infrastructure which gives you ILEC independence.
What do you think? Post a comment below or email Dave your opinions and ideas.
Consolidation in an Unstable Economy
November 21, 2008
With an unstable economy, we’re going to see more consolidation. Who do I see partnering and conjoining in all this?
I am expecting more M&A to emanate from foreign entities such as Reliance Telecom, Deutsche Telecom, T-Mobile, etc. What you will see, given the financial mess the world is in, the consolidation will be driven and valued on hard fixed assets. Carriers of the rental or co-location genre will get heavily discounted as broadband demand continues to grow and outstrips the need for or carrying capacity limitations of copper loops, T1, DSL, coax and SONET/ATM.
So what does that mean for AFS? What are AFS’s plans in this arena?
I have come to find that those out looking to acquire travel like lemmings. For example, if all the EBITDA multiples are 7x, then everything must sell at 7x. I am sorry to point this out to public shareowners, but this is as sophisticated as due diligence gets with some Investment Bankers. So a company like AFS that is growing, profitable and has probably the lowest churn in our industry can afford to wait until the lemmings move back up the scale. Companies not similarly situated, you get what you can when you can get it.
AFS is somewhere between a number of options, and as I write this, the option I prefer is management buying AFS from our existing investors and moving forward from there. We have often received unsolicited offers or inquiries of interest on a regular basis. Any decisions made will always be made in the optimal value interests of all our shareowners. As I stated earlier, there is no compelling reason to sell for less than optimal value in our case.
More to come on all this…
What’s your take on consolidation and the state of the economy? Shoot Dave an email or post a comment below.
Growth in Backhaul and Data Centers
November 18, 2008
I was asked to speak to the growth in backhaul demand as well as what we’re focusing on at AFS relative to that and other areas of opportunity. With the economy in a state of flux, we are seeing two areas of continued growth for all optical services: wireless backhaul and data centers.
Wireless backhaul continues to grow at double digit rates as more and more data IP applications get deployed wirelessly. We are building fiber to towers for wireless carriers. Outside of the demand, the fiber to the tower by AFS does two things for wireless operators. The first, we are not the ILEC, so you are not funding AFS to steal your customers. The second, fiber access is the most prudent, reliable and future proof way to go given escalating demand. However, what I am finding amusing is that certain carriers are getting snookered by believing copper bonding is a solution.
My reality check: AFS has done copper bonding as a test in one of our markets. Bottom line: we have ruled copper bonding out. It is only as reliable as a copper loop is until the next rain storm, signal dispersion ratio and its distance limitations. At AFS we go out of our way to avoid copper Type 2 anything. Some data: on our networks where we have some copper Type 2’s, over 95% of our service alarms per month are from these Type 2 circuits. Our end-to-end, all fiber enabled customers have had 100% service reliability since our inception eight years ago. At AFS we deliver on-time, and our networks are highly reliable. I see no use changing to copper bonding and risking our business reputation on ILEC copper pairs.
The second area of substantial growth is data centers. Enterprises and data center owners are recognizing the importance of having diverse optical network connectivity coupled with ring-protect fail over, circuit-protection and card level redundancy. Enterprise customers have learned that fiber to the data center which is diverse is a necessity to even enter a data center. It wasn’t long ago where the assumption was that the transport already exists at a data center placing the cart before the horse. On-time delivery, network reliability/diversity is very important to customers of data centers.
Shoot Dave an email or leave a comment below.
Guess Who’s Coming to the xchange magazine Blog?
November 14, 2008
You guessed it. This month I started a guest blog feature for xchange magazine on xchangemag.com. I posted my second xchange blog entry today entitled “Two Topics, One Conclusion” in which I wrote about how forbearance can help solve the fiber glut myth that exists. It also continues my commentary on the case for forbearance and answers a recent question I got:
“If all such forbearances were granted and the government stops watching, what will stop the ILECs from doubling prices where there isn’t competition and cutting prices in half where there is - thus ending the business case for anyone else to hook up more buildings with fiber? In other words, does granting forbearance necessarily lead to more choice?”
Here’s an excerpt from my post on the xchange blog:
Forbearance is the right tool to increase investment into local fiber optic infrastructure. This local fiber infrastructure is much needed to surpass today’s basic copper broadband to make the U.S. globally competitive in an array of industries.
As a result of being granted forbearance, ILECs will likely raise wholesale prices, as they should. This will generate profits for some, and for others, grant a timely death or consolidation. But as profits rise and regulatory certainty of forbearance manifests itself, then and only then will investment groups have an interest in entering the highly fixed cost business of local market competition on a fiber access platform. The worry that the ILECs will price everyone out of business is just a worry. Even the craziest of ILECs will recognize that if they get out of line, soon they would face regulatory scrutiny again. If anyone knows the touch point for monopolistic behavior, it is the ILEC. The last thing they want is more regulation when they have the control to avoid it. Control – understand that is what the ILEC is all about – from there, design your execution strategy.
Forbearance can also be a managed process. It does not necessarily represent a light switch. There can be safeguards and indices built into the process. But clearly, we need a sunset provision whereby all gloves are off the ILEC within five years. A five year sunset provision would mean that CLECs will have been given 17 years since CA 1996 to figure things out for themselves. Having such a sunset provision would clearly signal to investors that making high-cost investments in local fiber optic infrastructure is a value proposition and a long term advantage. Imagine if we had an eight-year sunset provision at the outset in 1996 – we would not be in the current mess. However, no one back then asked the non-celebrity types about regulatory policy – what could they possibly know? After all, they are from outside the beltway.
Is Dave right on or way off? Shoot Dave an email or post a comment below. You can also follow Dave’s xchange blog.
Latest Peering War
November 13, 2008
I’ve received several great questions via email recently — thanks much to those of you who are participating in the discussions in this forum, both with your ideas and your questions. Here’s a question I thought may be of interest to you.
What do you think of the latest peering war between Cogent and Sprint?
In one statement: Here we go again. It appears each time there has been a publicized peering dispute, Cogent shows up. I would feel different if we had the likes of Level 3 or a Global Crossing having disputes with others, but they don’t.  All I can speculate upon this time is what Cogent stated previously about a drop in internet traffic on their backbone.
They made this admission on their last quarterly call. If the traffic drop is severe enough, it would cause an imbalance between carriers resulting in Cogent traffic being carried for free in a load sharing arrangement.  What would drive traffic to fall? Well, if Cogent is the lowest priced provider, perhaps the theory of elasticity of demand just isn’t working. As the theory goes as you lower your prices, usage demand rises. Other carriers have not reported a drop in traffic demand albeit priced higher that Cogent. Other issues can affect traffic loss as well – things like coverage or network reliability. I don’t know if reliability is a problem for Cogent, but what I do know is that it is quite typical in telecom to get what you paid for.
Next quarterly call, let’s see what Cogent reports on churn and their traffic patterns.
Shoot Dave an email with your take, or post a comment or question below.
Feeds
