Qwest: Enterprise and Wholesale Drive the Business

Some will look at Qwest Communications International Inc. fourth quarter and full-year results and see trouble; others will see improvement. Irrespective of those judgments, it should be noted that for Qwest, business markets and wholesale are the majority of the business. 

Mass markets, which includes both consumer and small business revenue, represented about $1.4 billion worth of fourth-quarter revenue (and some portion of that is small business). 

Wholesale markets contributed $789 million. Business markets represented $1.1 billion.  In other words, Qwest one of these days relatively soon will be earning more money from wholesale and business customers than from consumers, as important as consumer markets may remain.  

Furthermore, revenue in business markets grew year over year, while mass market and wholesale revenue declined, with those declines attributable to voice services. 

In the fourth quarter of 2008, net income was $185 million, or 11 cents per diluted share, compared to $366 million, or 20 cents per diluted share, for the fourth quarter of 2007. Bad, eh?

Not if one considers the adjustments. The results include severance charges of $19 million, or one cent per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of 2008. More important, though, the earnings per share calculations reflect higher pretax income compared to the fourth quarter of 2007, offset by increased tax expense as the company recorded normal effective tax rates beginning in 2008. 

Income before income taxes in the fourth quarter increased 17 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2007.

Revenue in the quarter was $3.3 billion, a decline of three percent compared to $3.4 billion

in the fourth quarter of 2007 and a decline of two percent compared to the third quarter of

2008. 

Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $1.18 billion, a four percent increase compared to $1.14 billion in the year-ago period and a nine percent increase compared to $1.08 billion in the third quarter. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 35.6 percent compared to 33.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007 and 32.1 percent in the third quarter. 

For the full year, net income was $681 million, or 39 cents per diluted share, compared

to $2.9 billion, or $1.52 per diluted share, in 2007. Full-year results reflect the same normal effective tax rate dynamics as the fourth quarter. 

Earnings per share results include net special charges of three cents per diluted share in 2008 and 20 cents per diluted share in 2007. Income before income taxes was up 13 percent after adjusting for onetime

items.

Total revenue for the fourth quarter of $3.3 billion reflects an eight percent year-over-year growth in data, Internet and video revenues, which was offset by a decline of nine percent in voice revenue and a 33 percent decrease in wireless revenues.

As Qwest tells the story, income before income taxes increased 17 percent year over year while EBITDA increased four percent. Enterprise data and IP revenue was up nine percent year-over-year.

Data, Internet and video revenue now 25 percent of mass markets revenue, a key measure of how well Qwest is replacing declining landline voice revenues with new and alternative revenues. Qwest's consumer broadband subscriber base increased nine percent year over year. 

Brighter Prospects for SaaS?

Historically, the transmission belt for new applications and communications technology has been that university researchers would come up with something new, suppliers would sell those innovation into the enterprise market, and then at some point the tools move into the mid-market, then finally into the smaller business entities, finally winding up as consumer tools in the final stage.

These days, there are different avenues. In many cases, innovations come out of universities, then go straight to the consumer market and then fairly quickly into the small business market, with enterprises and mid-market customers becoming aware of the trends only as individual "lead users" start to make use of the tools in their work roles. 

Of late, in fact, it is hard to point to any significant innovations that went enterprise first, with the exception of mobile email, which was driven by enterprise users. Everything else pretty much developed first in a consumer context, including instant messaging, text messaging, any-to-any email, social networking, blogging and wikis. One might get an argument about wikis, but some of us would consider wikis to have been popularized in the consumer space. 

So it is with software as a service, which most observers will say has gotten most traction in the small business and consumer spaces, and only now is being considered in the enterprise and mid-market spaces.

One has to assume the opportunities for such changes are enhanced by the challenges businesses and organizations now face, as potential buyers now are facing new questions about how they ought to be doing things. 

Are Telcos Toast?

There is a sentiment in some quarters that the telecommunications industry is too inflexible, slow moving and unimaginative to transform itself. Those criticisms are well taken. They could be right. But look at matters a different way. If executives know what business they really are in, they won't make the proverbial mistake the railroad industry made: thinking it was in the "railroad" business instead of the "transportation" business. 

In fact, a quick review of technology underpinnings of the communication industry should tell the story. AT&T once meant "American Telephone & Telegraph."

The telegraph, and the business it created was an 1840s invention. The telephone was a 1870s invention. AT&T made the transition. Wireless was invented in the 1890s. And though they were slow to enter the business, large "landline" providers now lead the wireless business. 

Radio broadcasting was invented in the 1920s, television in the 1950s. Telcos and cable companies now are distributors of audio and television programming, on both a "tethered" and "mobile" basis, and this role will grow. The geostationary satellite industry was created in the 1960s. AT&T remains a big player in the satellite communications busines.s 

Computer communications began in the 1970s. Large telcos pretty much failed at their first efforts to enter the "computing" industry. But in different ways, they now are re-entering the computing services market, as integrators, content delivery networks and, someday, players in "cloud computing" infrastructure.

Optical communications began in the 1980s and telcos and cable companies are major end users of optical communications.

The Internet originated in the 1990s and now Internet access is almost a "legacy" product for telcos and cable companies. The next wave of IP-enabled next generation networks has barely begun. But I am hard pressed, looking at history, to worry too much about ability to finesse the latest waves of technology advance. 

Is Content Really King?

There continues to be talk in the communications business about network infrastructure providers as "dumb pipes." That's a bit of an analogy to the "content is king" discussions that the video business periodically revisits. Put simply, there is a tension, in either communications or media businesses, between the value added by network services and applications, and the debate never seems definitively solved.

Consider the case of Time Warner, which is in both the "content creation" and "network delivery" businesses. Some financial analysts say the content assets are overvalued, compared to the cable assets.  Time Warner Cable trades at a discount to Comcast on price-to-earnings multiple, some note. 

To be sure, some analysts worry about increasingly effective competition from Verizon and AT&T. But Time Warner Cable still is adding net subscribers in a recessionary environment. Of course, these debates tend to run in cycles. 

Distribution was the focus of the entertainment industry for much of the past 15 years. The large entertainment conglomerates took advantage of looser ownership regulations and technological advances to acquire more television and radio stations, cable and satellite subscribers, and internet portals. Basically, that's an argument for the importance of distribution. 

Some think there will be a swing in the other direction, as content owners increasingly focus on distribution across all platforms. News Corp. and Time Warner now are now sellers of distribution assets, for example. 

That doesn't necessarily speak directly to the relative importance of distribution compared to content ownership, though. It might be closer to the truth to say that in a climate where capital is scarce, and viewership is changing rapidly, content companies need to stick to their knitting. 

Conversely, some of us make the argument that distribution remains vital, and in any case is a far-bigger business than content. In 2003, for example, Hollywood box office revenues were $11 billion in the United States and $25 billion to $30 billion globally. The global music industry earned $35 billion. Videogaming, consoles and all software represented $40 billion worth of revenue.

In contrast, U.S.telecom revenues pulled in $348 billion.

Content is sticky, content is a fairly large business, content is part of the business the telecom industry now is part of. But that's not the same thing as arguing "pipes" are commodity items with no ability to differentiate. In fact, those pipes remain highly-valuable, very-scarce assets supporting a huge applications business. Voice is declining in value, to be sure. But broadband and mobility apps have arisen to replace those lost revenues. And the new frontier is all sorts of other business models, ecosystem relationships and values. That isn't to say the transformation will be easy, or steady in its progress. 

So make no mistake: transparent optical transport and access are, in some ways, undifferentiated at the moment. But that does not mean the values, features and applications delivered over those pipes are undifferentiated or commodities. 

It may never be possible to determine, once and for all, whether "content" or "distribution" are "the" king of the ecosystem. One thing is clear, though. Distribution is a far bigger business, because it includes the large person-to-person, machine-to-machine and one-to-many and many-to-one communications functions. 

Will Recession Lead to Permanent Behavior Changes?

Nobody yet knows when the current recession will end, or what will happen to various industry segments during the recession. What is even less known is how consumer and business behavior during the recession might carry on in the form of new trends once the recession is but a memory.

Recessions can cause people to think more about the effective use of their assets. In bad times, users are forced to see if there are substitute ways of doing things that save money right now. But if the substitutes are good enough, people might not go back to their former preferred ways of doing things.

At a practical level, business buyers in many cases are taking longer to make decisions, so the time lag from proposal to acceptance is stretching out.

But there still is little, if any, concrete evidence that business or consumer users are abandoning key services ranging from broadband access to wireless to multi-channel video. In fact, the evidence so far indicates they are behaving as they have in the past: keeping services but delaying upgrades and adoption of new enhanced services.

What bears watching are signs some customers are behaving in new ways, such as canceling multi-channel video subscriptions in favor of Internet alternatives. A recent poll by researchers at the Yankee Group suggest that one percent of respondents actually have done so.

Then there is the impact of users dropping landline services in favor of mobility, or using Skype instead of their landlines or mobiles, switching to prepaid from postpaid mobile plans, buying hosted business voice in place of new phone switches or buying some forms of broadband access instead of others.

The point is that tougher economic conditions will lead some consumers to experiment with new behaviors that might become permanent changes.

Broadband Stimulus: Small Details, Big Difference

The revised Senate version of the "stimulus" bill has not yet been passed. Nor has it been reconciled with the House version. But there could be big differences. The revised Senate version funnels money through the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. The House version splits disbursements between NTIA and the Agriculture Department.

The difference? For a company such as Qwest Communications, the Agriculture Department funds would not be available, because of Agriculture Dept. rural loan program rules. The NTIA program does not operate under those rules, making Qwest eligible to apply.

Essentially, Agriculture Dept. rules ascertain eligibility on a statewide basis, while NTIA would fund on a community basis. As Qwest serves both urban and rural communities in each of its states, it has been ineligible for rural broadband loans that it might otherwise qualify for.

So the reconciliation process will be crucial.

About $6.5 Billion in Broadband Spending Still in S.1

The 778-page Senate version of the "stimulus" bill apparently calls for about $6.5 billion in tax credits for supplying broadband to rural or "under-served" areas. It is not yet clear what will happen when the Senate version of the bill is reconciled with the House version.

The House version includes more specific references to broadband speeds, while the Senate version deletes those references.

Earlier versions of the Senate bill had talked about providing tax credits for building new capacity in rural and underserved areas would be as much as 40 percent, but only for service operating at 100 Mbps or faster.

A 30-percent credit would be offered for service operating at 5 Mbps or better. The bill also seems to allow 40-percent credits for wireless service operating at 6 Mbps or better downstream and 30 percent tax credits for wireless service of 3 megabits per second or better.

It does not appear that those clauses remain relevant in the new revised Senate "stimulus" bill, and reconciliation with the House bill might reinsert them in some way.

The revised language could be quite important, though, as many investors might balk at the notion of building 100 Mbps service as a prerequisite for getting loans under the broadband program, which in the revised Senate version also would operate under National Telecommunications And Information Administration oversight, not shared with the Agriculture Department as in the House version.

What a chore it has been to read the revised bill, and the original bill before it!

Sprint Nextel Operations Outsourcing Imminent?

Sprint Nextel Corp. soon will announce it is outsourcing part of its network operations to Ericsson, removing about 2,000 to 7,000 employees from Sprint's payroll, reports the Kansas City Business Journal.

That move, which would indicate Sprint Nextel no longer considers some parts of its network operations to be so important they must be staffed in-house, could affect about a third of Sprint’s network employees.

Sprint spokeswoman Lisa Zimmerman-Mott denied the report, though.

Sprint has said it would cut 8,000 jobs by the end of March. Those cuts include the head of Sprint’s network, Kathy Walker. In addition, former Ericsson executive Sven-Christer Nilsson joined Sprint’s board in November, the Kansas City Business Journal reports.

Cusick estimated that outsourcing network operations would save about 25 percent of expenses in that area.

Congressional Budget Office Says "Stimulus" Plans Will Reduce Output in the Long Run

The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that by 2019 the Senate "stimulus" legislation would reduce U.S. gross domestic product  by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent. H.R. 1, as passed by the House, would have similar long-run effects, the CBO says.

"Most of the budgetary effects of the Senate legislation occur over the next few years," CBO says.  Even if the fiscal stimulus persisted, however, the short-run effects on output that operate by increasing demand for goods and services would eventually fade away."

"In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals."

"In principle, the legislation’s long-run impact on output also would depend on whether it permanently changed incentives to work or save. However, according to CBO’s estimates, the legislation would not have any significant permanent effects on those incentives."

see http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9619.

$6 to $9 Billion for Rural Broadband Soon? Maybe Not.

Don't get your hopes up that the $6 billion to $9 billion in potential "economic stimulus" spending to support broadband in rural areas will have any near-term measurable impact, either as a way of getting the country out of its current recession, or getting more broadband to rural users. 

Analysis from the Congressional Budget Office now indicates it will take seven years to get that money spent, and, at best, about 60 percent of the money might be spent in the years leading to 2011. In other words, by the time most of the money actually gets spent, the recession is likely to be over. 

The CBO projected that much of the $6 billion in broadband grants geared to underserved and unserved areas will be spent between 2012 and 2016.

Praiseworthy though the effort to extend rural broadband is, the current proposal does not seem to support the goal of "stimulus," which is to put money to work right now. For starters, any grantees would have to put up 20 percent of any project's cost from their own, or other sources. One might question the ability to do so, under current tight credit conditions. 

Then there are "open access" rules that might affect 100 percent of any grantee's business. And there is no definition of what that means. Right now, any executive would have to factor in the impact of those rules on the whole business as the price of getting grant aid. Depending on how "open access" is defined, service providers might well conclude they cannot accept funding. 

"CBO anticipates that funds provided to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to administer the broadband grant program would take longer to spend--seven years--because the new appropriations would far exceed the agency's 2009 funding of $17 million, and the legislation would require, in most circumstances, that grant recipients provide 20 percent of the project's cost from non-federal sources," the CBO says. 

So an agency geared to disburse $17 million annually would have to suddenly gear up to disburse nearly $3 billion, an increase of two orders of magnitude. If you've ever had any hand in running any agency that does this sort of thing, you know that increases of that scale simply cannot be handled effectively, that fast. 

Under the House-passed bill, about $6 billion for broadband grants and loans, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration would distribute $2.8 billion in broadband grants with $1 billion going to wireless broadband. 

The Rural Utilities Service is expected to administer the remainder through its broadband loan program. The Senate is working on a $9-billion version that would include tax credits. 

New Era of Discrete Apps?

Many changes are possible as we move into an era of Web-based applications, built and accessed as Web services. On the demand side, users will be accustomed to a new way of buying and using software. On the supply side, we will see different business models. 

Especially for communications-enabled business processes, we likely will see more reliance on something we might call "discrete applications," rather than the more-monolithic approach we have seen historically, where lots of features were purchased upfront with the buying of a switch solution, for example. 

That doesn't mean every application is efficiently provided discretely. Generally speaking, large scale tends to dramatically tip the scale towards platform-based solutions. Conversely, low volume tends to tip the scale towards hosted, Web-based approaches. 

That is a pattern we have seen for services such as business phone systems, carrier switches and server farms, for example. If a provider or enterprise has high volume and lots of users, buying and owning switches and facilities tends to make more business sense than leasing or renting services or capacity.

Conversely, small entities with relatively low volume demand almost always are better off renting capabilities rather than buying and owning their own infrastructure. 

Roughly the same sort of economic logic should come into play in a new era where more applications are built and intended for use by relatively smaller number of users than in the past. The example already is seen in the broad consumer market.

Consider even broadly-purchased applications and services such as multi-channel video services. In an older paradigm, a single provider might expect 70 percent penetration. In a competitive market, even a successful provider might expect to get just 30 percent penetration. 

That changes the economics of network investment. Where once a provider might build a whole network and expect to get customers at seven out of 10 homes, now a provider has to build a network where ultimate penetration is three homes out of 10. that means shared costs must be borne by a considerly smaller number of actual paying customers. 

In the Web sphere, roughly similar sorts of phenomena are at work: in the vast majority of cases, any single application will have a smallish number of users. The opportunity for any single application will be quite small, compared to an earlier era where most people used a small number of relatively-standard applications. 

The good news is that all of the tools and infrastructure we now have will support robust business models even at relatively lower levels of end user demand. So one of the other implications is that we may be entering an era of vastly-expanded use of "discrete applications," custom built in many cases using pre-built modules or "primitives."

That in turn presupposes new ways of packaging, pricing, marketing, delivery and support, new ways of discovering needs and building solutions to match those needs. This means more discrete apps and fewer of the monolithic sort, even though some apps will continue to be relatively monolithic because they have mass usage. 

Adoption, Not Availability, is the Broadband Problem

What broadband really needs--more than money to build more broadband-- is action on the demand side, says David McClure, U.S. Internet Industry Association president. The reason is that only about one percent of Americans actually cannot buy broadband access if they want to. 

"We can now reach 99 percent of all households in the United States with some form of broadband," he says. "We are in pretty darn good shape."

The issue some policy advocates seem to be concerned about actually is not "availability" but rather "appetite" or other issues. Some potential customers might want broadband, but do not own PCs. Others might want broadband, but can't afford to buy it. Many potential users do not use PCs. 

About 25 percent of the U.S. population does not use the Internet at all, McClure notes. "Worse than that, they don't care if they don't get it."

About 51 percent of the non-users say the Internet is not relevant to their lives, McClure adds. 

It is true that 66 percent of the U.S. population now has some form of broadband at home. But that is a different matter than "availability." Cable modem service alone reaches 19 out of 20 homes in America, for example.

About nine percent of users have a dial-up connection. Of these, the majority cite price as the reason they haven't switched to broadband. 

"Broadband in America is in wonderful shape and if you hear differently, it is a lie," McClure says. "Adoption is the problem, not deployment."

That doesn't mean we should neglect targeted investment in some areas where broadband really is not available or where coverage is spotty, he says. But there are several demand side issues that must be tackled to stimulate more usage. literacy is an issue. PC ownership and training are issues. 

Investments in “smart networks” to enhance the efficiency of the networks and provide for advanced products and services also would be useful. 

"Ask a 'public policy' advocate to name a place where broadband isn't available," McClure says. "They don't know any."

"U.S. broadband infrastructure is ranked fourth in the world and rapidly improving," he says. "U.S. broadband adoption is ranked at 15th in the world and not improving."

The important point is that "we are 15th in terms of adoption, not availability."

36% of Social Networkers Want Access from TVs

A recent survey of over 1000 households conducted by ABI Research found that 36 percent of those who currently use social media on a regular basis say they’d like to access their networks on the TV screen.

Younger consumers were more interested in engaging with their friends through chat and messaging, while middle-aged respondents were more likely to be interested in more passive social networking behavior such as checking status updates. 

The most popular potential application for those over 50 who expressed interest in TV social networking was being able to see what their friends were watching on TV.

Not a Good Day for Arizona Cox Customers

Both broadband access and voice seem to be down across much of the state.

Time Warner Cable Grows Revenues 8% in Recessionary Year

How does Time Warner Cable perform in a full year of recession? By growing revenues eight percent, or $1.2 billion, over full-year 2007, to reach $17.2 billion. Subscription revenues were up eight percent($1.2 billion) to $16.3 billion. Video revenues grew four percent ($359 million) to $10.5 billion, benefiting from the continued growth in digital video subscriptions and video price increases.

High-speed data revenues rose 12 percent ($429 million) to $4.2 billion, driven by continued high-speed data subscriber growth. Voice revenues climbed 36 percent ($426 million) to $1.6 billion.

The rate of revenue units added slowed later in the year, though. That is in line with past recessions, when customers delayed adding more enhanced services. 

Still, Time Warner faces a problem in its legacy video business that telcos face in their legacy voice business. Time Warner Cable is losing "basic video" subs, as telcos are losing voice line customers. Time Warner Cable lost 119,000 customers in that category when some analysts anticipated 27,000 to 46,000 or so basic cable customer losses. 

Keep in mind, though, that these losses would likely have occurred even without a recession, as market share shifts away from cable and to telco video services are a secular trend that was underway before the recession.