Ed,
To the credit of the Thread, and what appears to be a new-found desire to discuss pro and con issues in a constructive manner <<whew! the noise was unbearable here for a time>>, your apprehensions were apparently unfounded. You stated:
>>Ok, blast me, but I just gotta ask.<<
Instead, you've received some good, open-minded replies. Well... make that for the most part... [Congratulations, Thread!]
You asked for opinions. Here's mine.
Until recently, the company did not present a clear picture of its intentions to outsiders. Nor did it make very clear which markets it was after, and how they would go about them without a star player on board (or at least accomplished individuals with demonstrated successes) to bring along technology transfer to a manufacturing company wanting to enter the world of carrier telephony. They also came up short, previously, in demonstrating how they would effect the necessary structural separations between manufacturing and telephony-related services to give prospects in each sector a warm feeling that they were dealing with focused entities.
More work needs to be done in this regard, but the move to announce the formal creation of an autonomous (that's my perception, anyway) subsidiary operating unit was a good first step, if not in true equity distribution at first, at least in the areas of object perceptions. IMHO, the combining of manufacturing and service creation just didn't mix, without some story-board-like depiction, such as exists now, to assist in the psychological perceptions area.
The reasons for this lie largely in the fact that large potential purchasers of gateways in the carrier sector would have serious problems lining the pockets of one of their principal competitors. This fact is exemplified by the AT&T-LU story.
[[Note: Attempts to dispel or discount the foregoing reasoning might point out that other ITSPs have, in fact, purchased the gateways. A closer look at those purchasers, however, will reveal that they are novices to telephony and too small to make a difference, compared to the larger and more lucrative catches that have yet to materialize.]]
On the service front, perhaps the wisest decision to date has been to put the business and deployment plans (and hopefully, the architectural ones, as well) in the hands of a professional who has been there before, and who is accustomed to dealing with the almost surreal proportions of scale that would intimidate or otherwise frighten any neophyte, and even some hardened veterans. This, perhaps, more than anything else, should go a long way to giving further hope that there is a good future for the company in internet telephony. Some other things have to take place, though, IMO.
I applaud the management team for acknowledging the need for these measures, and for following through with a structurally (if only at the operating level, and not yet financially) separate subsidiary to undertake the business of carrier class telephony and VoIP. Even as professionals, they've got their work cut out for them, to be sure. And this will take time to do it correctly. Unfortunately, it's not a matter of point and click like so many other things we've become so accustomed to.
And in order to be ultimately successful in the next phases of growth they may face some uncomfortable decision points, coming to realize that other platforms may be required in addition to the flagship gateways to make it work on a scale that all would like from both traffic-loading and functionality standpoints. This may mean making decisions that look beyond the myopia of what was invented here, just like any other carrier that seeks to procure best-of-breed in the scale component needed at the moment. Here, again, is another area where conflicts can come about due to the dual-personalities of a bifurcated agenda.
Back to the positive, it'll take some time for the merits of the recent actions to take hold, depending on the word getting out in an effective manner and in the proper context. In this respect, I think that there is some damage control and triage necessary going forward, and for this I have no prescriptions other than to suggest the following: Management should (1) own up to, and make it clear, that they are absolutely cognizant of what may have appeared to be past ambivalence, while they, along with the rest of the industry, were evaluating the evolving landscape; and, (2) state that they have taken the proper measures to be uncompromisingly focused through their sights going forward.
This part, perhaps, is just as crucial as any other, since it is now a battle centered on winning over perceptions, more so than before when there were no real players providing VoIP... as there are now.
In due time it will become evident which of the operating units will become dominant to the bottom line (manufacturing or service). When it becomes apparent, I think that it would be wise to without haste begin posturing the winning component as the spin-off prospect, in the true sense of the term spin-off.
This would then have the effect of finalizing the separation of the two business lines, and eliminating the inhibiting effects that have existed, IMO, in the eyes of large prospects in both sectors. I still think that this is of paramount importance for both lines of business to succeed to their fullest potentials, which could translate to the greatest level of individual shareholder enrichment, as well.
Ample evidence exists in at least one other model of VoIP in the International sector, here in SI, that a VoIP player who rolls their own widgets, without selling same to the world at large, can result in a world of difference. Don't know about you, but I'm always willing to learn from others. In the end, it may all be a matter of learning how to "let go" and profiting from the powers of two.
FWIW, and just MHOs,
Best Regards to All,
Frank Coluccio |
