Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Skype Shakeup Adds to Stand Alone VoIP Uncertainty
03 Oct, 2007
Recent news out of eBay is that skype hasn’t turned out to be the goldmine that they hoped. Skype co-founder and CEO Niklas Zennstrom stepped down as CEO and eBay wrote off $1.4 billion of the original $2.6 billion Skype investment. You really have to feel for Zennstrom and his co-founders. Instead of walking away with $1.7 billion (per the incentives in the original buy out deal), they now only receive $530 million. I guess they’ll be anxiously awaiting the next Wal-Mart circular. This recent news adds to the mounting bad news surrounding stand alone VoIP players like Vonage and SunRocket. Is this recent example proof positive that VoIP will only flourish within the walls of established status quo companies like Comcast and Verizon? Or is this more a case of eBay “fumbling” with the jewel that skype could have become?
The troubles that stand alone VoIP companies have faced over the past year or so are, well, “troubling.” Vonage, clearly seen as a threat by traditional telecom carriers, has seen their legal bills increase exponentially as they fight multiple patent infringement suits. SunRocket could not generate enough cash flow to sustain itself. And now skype’s parent is admitting that their original vision of integrating skype’s technology and subscriber base into their active “community” has not materialized. At least not in an adequate return on investment sense. Perhaps there is a hard lesson to be learned here by all involved, including VoIP start ups. The lesson may be that beyond those of us that work in the communications industry, meaning your average consumer, VoIP is simply viewed as cheap long distance. Not as some revolutionary new way to communicate with potentially life changing experiences. I think we in the communications industry are guilty at times of believing our own “powerpointware” (or maybe drinking our own “kool aid”). If VoIP is indeed viewed as merely cheap long distance, then it will be very difficult to build a sustainable business around it alone. It may only survive as a part of something larger. I am certainly not discounting the tremendous value that IP brings to a service provider. But I am questioning whether companies can put VoIP at the center of their value proposition and survive over the long term.
digg this story
googlePar for the course
Every disruptive technology goes through this stage. New entrants to a market take the lead by leveraging technology far better than the entrenched traditionalists. Soon the traditionalist wakes up when there's enough noise and either taps their deep pockets to catch up or acquires some of the early entrants. It's a common cycle. VoIP is no different. We need companies like Skype and Vonage and the entrepreneurs who launch them. It keeps everybody honest.
Classic case
The skype example is just a classic case of a leading company being absorbed by a larger company, and then losing its edge. Companies like skype have to be on their own to truly innovate. Once a larger company takes them over, the original founder/innovators either get stifled or lose interest because their so rich. In skype's case, I suspect it was a little of both. Zennstrom has turned his attention to Joost now. Probably gave hime the innovation outlet he needed. How long before someone buys them.
Post new comment
About Telecompetitor
Telecompetitor is a leading industry blog covering the telecom competitive landscape. We provide insight, analysis, and commentary on the issues and implications of the evolving telecom competitive landscape.
a publication of
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?
Missing the point
I think you have to be careful. I look at VoIP as a movement, not a business model or technology. Companies like Skype and Vonage realized that VoIP is a tool to empower subscribers. It empowers them to do a variety of things, including thumb their nose at the phone company. Phone companies have to be careful not too misunderstand VoIP - sure, it's cheap long distance, but it's also a way to give subs more power/control. Think of web based call managers as an example. If phone companies think VoIP is a diffent way to do the same thing, they'll miss the boat.