& cplSiteName &

Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing

Light Reading
News Analysis
Light Reading
1/31/2005
50%
50%

SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: SBC) and AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T) today made it official: The two carriers will merge in a deal valued at around $16 billion. Senior executives from both companies say the merger will create a ”prototype for 21st century telecom companies.” (See SBC to Buy AT&T for $16B.) The deal represents a huge and much-needed consolidation for carriers, and analysts say it will lead to similar moves by competing carriers (see SBC/AT&T Could Ignite M&A Frenzy and SBC/AT&T: Possible Winners & Losers).

While the two companies have explored the possibility of pairing up over the years, AT&T chairman and CEO Dave Dorman says his company saw the merger as an opportunity to accelerate its growth and transformation by pairing with SBC. “With our step back from the consumer market to focus on enterprise services, AT&T is a very complementary partner for SBC,” he said in a morning conference call. “It’s a hand-in-glove partnership.”

But others have a different view. Given AT&T's troubles of late, many see the deal signaling that AT&T knew it doesn’t have the cards to compete and decided to fold before the pot got too big. Indeed, the terms of the deal do not give AT&T investors a premium price. “On its own, AT&T had a much more challenging future,” says Legg Mason Inc. telecom analyst Brad Wilson. “The benefit for AT&T investors from this deal is that they have a future.”

The deal will indeed have a major financial impact on both the companies, although investors will have to wait until 2008 to see the combined carrier turn a profit. The combined company predicts it will be free cashflow positive in 2007 and earnings per share (EPS) positive in 2008. SBC says the duo will have an annual revenue run rate of almost $2 billion in 2008, growing to more than $3 billion by 2011.

AT&T's shares fell $0.59 (2.99%) to $19.12 in late afternoon trading on Monday. SBC's shares went the other way; they rose $0.11 (0.47%) to $23.73.

The companies say that their complementary networks will provide a solid foundation for integrated services that includes a global IP backbone, local access, broadband access, and a nationwide wireless network (see SBC/AT&T Cheat Sheet).

But there will be some overlap as well. The companies plan to combine all aspects of their businesses, which will lead to some layoffs and facility combinations. The two carriers say their network centers, local switches, and field sales forces will be combined. There will also be consolidation around network planning and engineering functions. However, no immediate layoff estimates were given by the companies.

”The thing that jumps out at me about this deal is the amount of cost savings that will take place across the board,” says Stan Hubbard, senior analyst at Heavy Reading. “They’re predicting $15 billion in savings through cost reductions and revenue growth.” Hubbard notes that the companies expect 85 percent of the synergies to come from cost reductions by eliminating duplicate facilities and streamlining business processes and organizations.

The pairing will also give AT&T an opportunity to get some major traffic on its IP network. “They’re finally going to have an opportunity to put a lot of traffic on their intelligent network,” Hubbard says. Hubbard says that’s bad news for WilTel Communications Group Inc., the carrier currently providing SBC's IP services.

AT&T’s CallVantage VOIP offering is another ripe fruit that fits in well with SBC’s Project Lightspeed, which aims to offer video and voice services to 18 million customers by 2007 (see SBC Sheds Light on 'Lightspeed'). SBC chairman and CEO Edward Whitacre says that AT&T’s VOIP offering was an appealing part of the deal. “We hope we can roll our existing VOIP programs into what they have as quickly as possible,” he says. Such a move is a big win for SBC, whose VOIP offering is scheduled to roll out to consumers next month.

“What this does is accelerate our ability to migrate to IP in the local platform,” says SBC COO Randall Stephenson. “In terms of Lightspeed, this is probably one of the most exciting parts about this deal. Obviously when you start moving video and high-speed data by the volumes we’re talking about in deploying Lightspeed, the kind of backbone capacity that AT&T brings to bear is really exciting.”

An AT&T/SBC pairing is anything but a done deal, as the companies must get regulatory approval from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and as many as 28 states. “I think there is a good chance this deal gets done,” says Heavy Reading’s Hubbard. “Part of it depends on who will be the new FCC chairman and how market-friendly he or she is." (See Chairman Powell to Step Down.)

Legg Mason’s Wilson also believes the merger will happen, but says it might take longer than the 17 months the companies estimate. “It’s probably more likely to take 18 months,” he says. “The key issue is how bad the states involved muck up the process.” He also thinks AT&T might have to divest some of its small business operations before the deal gets approval.

SBC’s Whitacre says the AT&T name will stick around in some capacity, possibly as the company’s business arm. “AT&T is an American icon,” he says, "and we plan on allowing it to continue as we move forward. Some may think it’s ironic that a Baby Bell is acquiring its parent, but it’s the right move. It’s good for shareholders, customers, and employees.”

One issue still to be resolved has to do with SBC’s investment in Cingular Wireless, which it holds in partnership with BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS). Many observers see this as a major conflict brewing, but SBC downplayed those concerns with folksy reassurances in lieu of real proof. "This deal will be real good for Cingular,” Whitacre says. “This is the best deal at this time. I don't think that the relationship [with BellSouth] will be soured."

Looking ahead, the combined SBC/AT&T intends to focus on increasing revenues through higher-growth segments like VOIP, IP VPN, Ethernet, and network management. By acquiring AT&T, SBC will gain enterprise expertise and AT&T’s nationwide network, which will allow it to expand its enterprise base and eliminate costs. “Our local and global assets complement each other,” says AT&T’s Dorman. “Companies who invest in all local or long-haul access don’t take into consideration what consumers want.”

“In terms of size, this deal is not the largest I’ve been involved with,” Whitacre adds. “But it certainly is the most important for the future of the telecommunications industry.”

— Chris Somerville, Senior Editor, Next-Generation Services

(26)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First        ADD A COMMENT
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:50 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
"Do you believe the future VoIP powerhouses will find a way to bypass the local loops or HFC plants?"

They're doing it now.

Who is the "they" in which you are referring to? The only people I see who are bypassing the incumbents control are folks like Clearwire http://www.clearwire.com/ That's a bet on WiMAX, which seems like a long shot and doesn't provide enough bandwidth for real broadband services. Most everybody else seems to be building some sort of overlay model which means their dependent upon the incumbent controlled infrastructure. The ISP/CLEC lessons suggests where that goes.

PS. Bit torrent combined with fraudband doesn't seem like a viable proposition. I don't see how it pays the supply chain nor how it drives investment into modernizing our communications infrastructures.
paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:27:51 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing

Its funny that everybody speaks out of both sides of their mouths on deployment speed and unbundling.

A - If deployment does not go fast, then the elimination of unbundling to FTTP sites means nothing as there are no customers on it.

or;

B - Deployment goes fast, which means that everyone is getting the network upgrade they desire.

I think people will be shocked at how fast old services will be eliminated.

seven
beowulf888
50%
50%
beowulf888,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:51 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
RJ:
Sorry -- I didn't think my sarcastic remarks would generate serious discussion. Yikes! Now I have really be careful what I say...

You wrote:
"Do you believe the future VoIP powerhouses will find a way to bypass the local loops or HFC plants?"

They're doing it now. Maybe not with excellent voice quality. But a high MOS score probably isn't as important as (A) convenience and (B) cheapness.

Moreover, there's a lot of long distance international traffic that's VoIP now. But most people think of VoIP to the home when they talk about VoIP.

"Also, what's your opinion from the TIVO experience?"

Couldn't comment on TIVO. I shot my TV back in the 80s. But just because TIVO is having troubles doesn't mean there isn't a market for consumer-controlled media devices. Maybe the incumbents can quash the technology, but they'll have to do it by investing billions in making it convenient and inexpensive. But if they invest billions, well their ability to offer it inexpensively is undermined. In reality, I don't think it won't be big-Cable and media companies that kills TIVO, I think it will be ubiquitous broadband and BitTorrent that will kill TIVO.

"In my opinion somebody has got to provide a common carriage access infrastructure, one that prioritizes voice traffic from the best effort data, if VoIP critters are going to go beyond the enterprise and become the next GTE. Am I missing something?"

Well, most of this stuff is layer 4 through 7 -- which carriers have always done poorly. Maybe they'll evolve, but I sort of doubt it.

--Beo
allidia
50%
50%
allidia,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:53 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
I would be surprised if SONS is cutthroat in pricing while maintaining 59-62% margins vs. Nortel's 43% for Q1/2 04 and NT taking an Indian contract at an outright loss which will reduce margins even further. As for the VZ issues time will tell when their contract expires this June. Analysts have mentioned "issues" with NT gear in VZ and others speculate it is Echo related. SONS AT+T revenues are recognized when certain milestones are met. Look at the deferred revenue column for a hint.
OldPOTS
50%
50%
OldPOTS,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:54 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Some carriers own large interest in Voice Gateways. They are feature rich, but more expensive. I think they are the third little known option.

OldPOTS
OldPOTS
50%
50%
OldPOTS,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:54 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
keelhaul42

Most triple play trials are now done with FTTH/U/C in new greenfield development areas and then extended to some revenue generating brownfields. Most leading carriers have at least proposed these smaller trials over the last few years. Now these include both homes, apts strip shopping malls and some midsize enterprises.

Note the money is in the high-density apts, malls and enterprises. More ARPU. Less fiber, equipment and much better take rate than residential. As stated in other posts, the money is in density and then residential becomes gravy. For new developments, the cost of fiber install is about the same. But the slight added equipment costs is made up for in the added value to the developer. Developers have many times sought out carriers, RBOCs and CLECS to operate as partners and then paid the install costs.

Note three cables go in for nearly the price of one for the developer. Redundancy, choice and wired for the future. Developer has choice of cableco that can use coax laid by developer if 15% competition in area. That is why cabelcos may litigate for requiring everyone (carriers) to have a city franchises (See VZ article), even though it is possible for them not to have franchise (FCC/congress 15% competition rule with satellite TV or other).

In many cases the first FTTH B-PON (ATM) application is HIS (Internet) and voice (VoATM GR303) and a few with the more expensive video (cableco advantage) implementation. They test migrating voice and HIS, all to IP. When the todayG«÷s "Edge Router Evolution" is available in archive I suggest you listen intently. Video is still a challenge; technical and expensive.

"I say RBOCS lightly because I don't think they intend to follow through after the pilot projects"
I concur that follow through will be slow! They'll nibble until they need to strike. Video is more difficult, even on B-PON (Broadcast frequencies) is not easy (learning curve) and they need to work out the probable/cheaper solution before striking. But they have tested the more expensive B-PON broadcast equipment if they must.

OldPOTS

prefer_to_lurk
50%
50%
prefer_to_lurk,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:55 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
"I'm a little surprised because NT is known to give their product away. Must be those rumored ECHO issues at VZ."

Interesting... from what I've seen over the years, Sonus is the one with cutthroat pricing.

How much has T actually bought from Sonus ? They aren't listed among the 10%+ customers in the latest SONS 10-Q.

Similarly, it is rumored that several major accounts are actively evaluating competing vendors as they finish out their Sonus contracts. I guess it's hard to stay ahead of the big boys when your R&D budget is less than $40M per year...

ptl
allidia
50%
50%
allidia,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:56 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
will use AT+T VOIP solution (SONS). This appears to be a major win for Sonus and another disappointment for NT. I'm a little surprised because NT is known to give their product away. Must be those rumored ECHO issues at VZ. I guess the next question is how much is SONS worth to Alcatel or maybe even Cisco? It would appear that they are the defacto standard for T/SBC/ and most likely Cingular when it comes to Carrier class VOIP.
paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:27:56 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing

First off, there was some competition in out of region.

Second, I think unless you have all lost it you have forgotten the rule of money around communications. Residential Service was subsidized by Business Service. Now we have changed the rate structure so this is not true anymore, but the high margin piece of the market is in Enterprise services. Frankly, consumer services have always been more a mile wide, inch deep (in terms of margin) service. So, I would expect a lot of profit from out of region VoIP.

Third, the only reason SBC would do it would be to amortize the expense of their network. If they have an AT&T site in say Atlanta and they can for no additional capital offer VoIP to residences in Atlanta then this is a good deal. It raises volume on the network which in turn lowers the cost per bit/second of the network. Most existing out of region businesses simply don't justify the expenditure of capital.

Finally, fgoldstein is probably ready to type "so that is why we need UNE-P". My problem with UNE-P is that it never justified the expenditure of capital under any circumstances. From an CLEC's standpoint, you took money out of your enemies' pocket and you could use it to invest in other things. If there was a way to say, you can have UNE-P for 1 year and then you are required to put in your switches after 1 year or be heavily fined, then I could agree to it. But to subsidize a company with no need to add value to the economy just makes no sense. If you can make a business case to invest in a switch and want to compete early fine. But to take money out of one pocket to place in another pocket is called robbery.

seven
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:57 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
I'd expect SBC to press VOIP out-of-region - that is, in those areas of the country where they are not the incumbent copper plant owner.

Regulators expected the RBOCs to compete out-of-region with the UNE-P rules as well. It never happened. Why would VoIP be any different?
PO
50%
50%
PO,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:58 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Two dinosaurs mating will not a VoIP powerhouse make.

I'd expect SBC to press VOIP out-of-region - that is, in those areas of the country where they are not the incumbent copper plant owner. The AT&T deal gives them an immediate national presence to advance that agenda.

In-region, they can offer it as a defensive play against competitor's offerings, but as the ILEC their cost structure would presumably be better on traditional technologies.

The question, IMHO, is to what extent a DSL offering can be separated from the voice services offering. That is, to what extent can you buy DSL without buying voice from that same carrier?
keelhaul42
50%
50%
keelhaul42,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:27:59 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
OldPots:
They know how to easily upgrade DSL and they have had a small FTTH access trial for a few years. SBC is now behind in the triple play application scaling/rollout capabilities, but probably ahead of most US competitors, except cablecos.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who do you know who is working with "triple Play" besides cablecos and RBOCS? ( I say RBOCS lightly because I don't think they intend to follow through after the pilot projects.)
I've heard talk of wireless networks but not seen or heard of actual deployment.
Anything in your area?

thx,

-kh
fgoldstein
50%
50%
fgoldstein,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:27:59 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
> Skype is universally being praised for good voice quality, even though it uses best effort network. Given that why do you think we need a common carrier who prioritize voice traffic?

The laws of physics still apply. Skype performance depends on the intevening networks. Sometimes good, sometimes not. "Universally" is a bit strong, because any non-prioritized VoIP can suck when the link is congested. No way around it.
paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:28:00 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing

I want to correct a factual error made below that AT&T was shut out of the local loop.

What was deleted was UNE-P which was the ability to rent both switch and loop capacity. UNE-L which allows AT&T to rent the local loop alone still exists. Also, AT&T owned a cable company and decided to sell it. If it had not done so, it would have had a local loop alternative for any of its services.

Also anytime anyone wants to build a network they are quite welcome to. The overbuilder market exists and many companies are profitable doing so.

In fact, AT&T, MCI and Sprint LD own plenty of plant to their major business customers. Which is where the money lies for these firms anyway. The whole point of this deal will be to allow SBC to win in the Enterprise space.

seven
aswath
50%
50%
aswath,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:01 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Msg. #9: ... one that prioritizes voice traffic from the best effort data ...

Skype is universally being praised for good voice quality, even though it uses best effort network. Given that why do you think we need a common carrier who prioritize voice traffic?
OldPOTS
50%
50%
OldPOTS,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:02 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
The quote "Obviously when you start moving video and high-speed data by the volumes weG«÷re talking about in deploying Lightspeed, (and enterprizes) the kind of backbone capacity that AT&T brings to bear is really exciting.G«•

Now Williams capacity becomes available for the others' freaking longhaul networks. This helps some early deployers. The cablecos obviously have the video, but will need this capacity for VoIP.

If you assume higher speed DSL and FTTU fast roll out with triple play, then SBC can strike quickly as they now have longhaul network Capacity.

They know how to easily upgrade DSL and they have had a small FTTH access trial for a few years. SBC is now behind in the triple play application scaling/rollout capabilities, but probably ahead of most US competitors, except cablecos.

OldPOTS
keelhaul42
50%
50%
keelhaul42,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:04 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
RJ:
Do you believe the future VoIP powerhouses will find a way to bypass the local loops or HFC plants?
>>>>>
No, unless they build their own. Maybe wireless.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also, what's your opinion from the TIVO experience? They seemed to offer differentiating technology but are now getting crushed by the incumbents. How will VoIP providers fare any better, particullary when common carriage regulations are removed by the FCC?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They won't. That means voip will be provided either by the [loop or cable] owner -- or someone partnered with them.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In my opinion somebody has got to provide a common carriage access infrastructure, one that prioritizes voice traffic from the best effort data, if VoIP critters are going to go beyond the enterprise and become the next GTE. Am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Giving the RBOCs a monopoly didn't work before. I don't expect it will work now -- insofar as "work" is defined as getting advanced broadband access built out.
But the cablecos are building out some pretty good access facilities and they DO have a monopoly. I expect if anyone builds out some kind of WiMAX facility they will also get a monopoly on its use.
So it's not clear to me that the monopoly status is necessarily the problem -- unless you're one of those "outside" voip operators who wants access.

Are we asking for too much? We have the cablecos building out the kind of access infrastructure we all say we want (sorry RJ, it's not all fiber). We have people taking a hard look at WiMAX.
If the RBOCs just want to stick with POTS, well, let them.

-kh
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:06 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Two dinosaurs mating will not a VoIP powerhouse make. Look for VoIP from the critters who stay outside the range of their mating dance -- and who are smart enough and swift enough not to get crushed under their stompting feet ;-)

Do you believe the future VoIP powerhouses will find a way to bypass the local loops or HFC plants?

Also, what's your opinion from the TIVO experience? They seemed to offer differentiating technology but are now getting crushed by the incumbents. How will VoIP providers fare any better, particullary when common carriage regulations are removed by the FCC?

In my opinion somebody has got to provide a common carriage access infrastructure, one that prioritizes voice traffic from the best effort data, if VoIP critters are going to go beyond the enterprise and become the next GTE. Am I missing something?
beowulf888
50%
50%
beowulf888,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:06 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Two dinosaurs mating will not a VoIP powerhouse make. Look for VoIP from the critters who stay outside the range of their mating dance -- and who are smart enough and swift enough not to get crushed under their stompting feet ;-)

OldPOTS
50%
50%
OldPOTS,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:07 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
I have observed that the RBOCs do marketing like IBM originally did, except they will buy capacity and technology as needed to supplement their own in house resources (SBC-Austin). Their advantage of being the big fish in the pond is that their action can be to ignore, delay, build up and wait, nibble or strike as they must. Regulators and competitorG«÷s customers make them take these calculated actions. While waiting they scale (acquire) the technology and capacity based on how soon they feel they must nibble or strike.

Now re-read rjmG«÷s post (#6). They are preparing for appeasing/delaying the regulators, delaying their customerG«÷s implementations, but making additional money from the enterprise business. Probably increasing lab activity preparing for a limited deployment nibble. And meanwhile learning from the newly acquired enterprise customers. (Yes, they have come to help me by asking about our experience) But this enables SBC to load up and prepare for a hard strike, probably later than 2007, but not necessarily. Just when they must, using the latest operational technology available in their lab(s). Meanwhile they squeeze the cash cow.

Any other guesses when they must nibble further or strike? (Later than sooner)

OldPOTS
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:08 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
I think I found the answer..from LR

Be careful about taking SBC's press releases for face value. Remember, there are regulatory hurdles ahead before this deal goes through. Their position is that VoIP provides for local loop competition hence they don't need regulatory controls because the market will take care of things. They have to make promises of adopting VoIP if regulators are to believe them.

Turn promises into actions is where the proof will be. I believe today SBC has approx 5.1M DSL subscribers. It would be easy for them to distribute/sell a linksys/netgear VoIP enable broadband router with SIP stacks to 10-20% of these customers (1M or so). To date, this hasn't happened? Why not? At the end of the day, implementing competitive VoIP probably isn't in their interest though it does provide for regulatory cover.
allidia
50%
50%
allidia,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:09 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
I think I found the answer..from LR

AT&TG«÷s CallVantage VOIP offering is another ripe fruit that fits in well with SBCG«÷s Project Lightspeed, which aims to offer video and voice services to 18 million customers by 2007 (see SBC Sheds Light on 'Lightspeed' ). SBC chairman and CEO Edward Whitacre says that AT&TG«÷s VOIP offering was an appealing part of the deal. G«£We hope we can roll our existing VOIP programs into what they have as quickly as possible,G«• he says. Such a move is a big win for SBC, whose VOIP offering is scheduled to roll out to consumers next month.

G«£What this does is accelerate our ability to migrate to IP in the local platform,G«• says SBC COO Randall Stephenson. G«£In terms of Lightspeed, this is probably one of the most exciting parts about this deal. Obviously when you start moving video and high-speed data by the volumes weG«÷re talking about in deploying Lightspeed, the kind of backbone capacity that AT&T brings to bear is really exciting.G«•

marlin_brando
50%
50%
marlin_brando,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:09 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
How much bukcs AT&T employees made
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:10 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Since Sonus is the incumbent at AT+T for softswitches and gateways does SBC's plan to build off of AT+T imply a SONS win at SBC?

You may want to read the LR article discussing possible winners and losers. It mentions Sonus and VoIP.

http://www.lightreading.com/do...

I disagree with the opinions expressed in the article. I see it this way. The reason AT&T embraced VoIP is because they were shut out of the local loop. They really didn't have any other choice. SBC, on the the other hand, has never embraced VoIP (beyond rhetoric). A poster on this board suggested it was because SBC didn't have the required expertise. I find that very hard to believe. SBC could easily hire the expertise. It seems more likely SBC makes more money by protecting their millions of POTS lines than they do by opening them up to third party competition. It's highly likely SBC's policy of protectionism will prevail after the merger. That really isn't good news for VoIP equipment providers selling into AT&T.

Let's hope I'm wrong and LR is right.
euler
50%
50%
euler,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:13 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
Anyone have insights into the potential impact to AT&T's continuously shrinking research organization? SBC Labs has the upper hand and I wonder if it'll be: "y'all are gonna have to relocate to Texas"
allidia
50%
50%
allidia,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:28:13 AM
re: Execs Explain SBC, AT&T Pairing
is projected between the two companies? Would the commbined CAPEX make them the largest spending RBOC? Since Sonus is the incumbent at AT+T for softswitches and gateways does SBC's plan to build off of AT+T imply a SONS win at SBC? It sure would be nice to know...
Featured Video
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 2-22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
All Upcoming Live Events
Partner Perspectives - content from our sponsors
Transform Beyond Borders to Lead the Innovation
By Ben Zhou, CEO, Whale Cloud
Reject Limits. Build the Future.
By David Wang, Huawei
China Telecom & Huawei Jointly Complete the World's First End-to-End 5G SA Voice & Video Call
By Jay Liu, Senior Marketing Manager, Cloud Core Product Line, Huawei Technologies
All Partner Perspectives