Shopping Cart


List All Products
Download Area
Show Cart
Your Cart is currently empty.

Email us or call
(813) 963-5884

Testimonial

“Peter possesses a keen sense and insight for turning telecom services and products into customers and dollars. He is passionate about this industry, his work and the people he serves. Visit his site, read his blog and sign up for his newsletter at marketingideaguy.com and you will discover what makes Peter a sought after marketing consultant.”

Cynthia de Lorenzi, CEO, Patriot Computer Group

What is the Value Prop of VoIP?
On Rad's Radar
Monday, 16 April 2012 12:51

"It is happening and no one seems interested in stopping it - that hosted voice services are rapidly becoming a commodity service," Dave Michels

"According to the Telecommunications Industry Association, wireless has become the preferred voice-services option. Wireless revenue in 2012 is forecast at $335 billion, while all other forms of fixed network voice revenue will only total $176 billion ($132 billion for wireline, $38 billion for broadband access and $6 billion in cable/television revenue)," blogs David Byrd of Broadvox.

Those are interesting numbers. And there is more interesting numbers when you look at VoIP.

"Zeus Kerravala estimates penetration [of SIP Trunking] is right around 5% in the United States," reports Razorsight. Just 5%! The blog continues with: "In some cases, it is argued, SIP trunks do not save money." This statement flies in the face of an imperative in our industry. If a SIP Trunk isn't saving money, why not sell and install a TDM PRI that has known stability and quality? This would certainly be the reverse of where the Industry is heading: all IP. But if we are heading all IP in a move to save money - more for the carriers than the customers, I think - and SIP Trunks are not a big cost savings, where does that leave the sales proposition?

According to Insight Research, Hosted PBX is about $500M now. That's not a lot. I figure with 1000 service providers running around yelling "I'll save you money" while cutting pricing to close any deal, that figure would have to be greater than $1B.

Revenue is dipping in everything - GigE ports in a data center, T1's, MPLS, DIA, broadband. The only rates going up are cellular and TV.

Scary stat: "In 2010, operators made on average only $13.21 per user per year from mobile VoIP services."

There are reasons that the Hosted PBX revenue is small: VoIP is sold as cheaper than TDM, so on the conversion from TDM to VoIP the bill declines. Also, there is no way to accurately report the Hosted PBX industry with its 1000+ providers out there with everything from an Asterisk box to a Broadsoft suite. Also, switched voice traffic is migrating to other avenues like chat, IM, SMS, and cellular. That's why Unified Messaging and Hosted UC should be huge - but sadly are not.

One reason is that the sales pitch has been so loud for so long on I Will Save You Money that we have trained the marketplace to buy it that way. Sure, you can blame the Agents and the Direct Sales folks, but at the end of the day -- going back to the pin drop in 1986, we have been working on giving away margin and revenue. Oh and neglecting Value.

"The cable industry, without a doubt, is the main purveyor of VoIP in the United States. An industry strategy is to bundle video, VoIP voice and data. The approach is to offer a good deal on the three services....The bundling strategy has served cable operators well and has been embraced by telephone companies," reports Carl Weinschenk. This bundling has even resulted in a Price War. Again no Value, just commodity price shopping.

The thing about VoIP that most companies don't get is that it is just an app - Google Talk or any chat app that adds voice; gaming consoles that let you chat with your peers; Skype; MagicJack; mobile apps on your cellphone; audio conferencing; and now Hosted PBX. The Value of VoIP is that it can be attached to other apps like email or a computer we call a PBX or on another computer we call an IP Phone. The Value isn't in the dial-tone. The Value is in how it is applied and used.

Hosted PBX (and its complicated cousin, Hosted UC) take VoIP to a different level. Therein lies the problem though. Now it's tougher to sell!

The value of VoIP is in a click-to-call button or a Speak Live app on your website that converts prospects into customers.

The value in VoIP is allowing the medical office scheduling to be completed by the computer and not a human to save time, be efficient and let the office manager do other tasks.

With debt piling up and revenue waning, it's time for the carriers to change the way they sell. It's time to sell on Value. It's also time to realize that Layer 7 of the OSI model - Apps - is where they break-away from the ILEC's.

I've written before about what EarthLink should do, about niche marketing and about bundling. No is listening yet. But I will keep trying to drive this point home.

Another way to look at it:

People would pay more for Voice if we would sell it in a non-traditional way. Stop selling it like a POTS line.

Look at what Jon Arnold writes, "Building off that base, [ShoreTel] understands the voice 2.0 value proposition - it's all about the applications and the experience - not just cheaper, reliable connectivity. With VoIP, dial tone quickly becomes a commodity, and their view is that high value applications are the best way to differentiate against low priced competitors. One example was their Live Answer demo - a simple cloud-based diagnostic tool that shows what percentage of calls is being answered live. This basic piece of information has inherent value not just in the contact center, but for any business where phone inquiries can lead to sales."

Read more... [What is the Value Prop of VoIP?]
 
It's Not Just About Price
On Rad's Radar
Monday, 16 April 2012 12:17
This article in the NYT article about Amazon is about the book publishing industry. Amazon is waging a battle against book publishers over price. As a book buyer, I often wonder how an e-book can cost almost the same as the printed version. In this article, the publishes yell about the way Amazon undercuts their other sellers and demands lower prices - like Home Depot and WalMart.

Reading the comments, I think most people miss two points: books can still be published without publishers (although they may be inferior products) and Amazon is more about ease of business - easy to order, easy to get delivered.  Most websites do NOT have that. Yesterday, during a pitch at Startup Weekend Tampa, one company mentioned the online shopping cart abandonment problem - 65% on average - it is about ease of use and transparency. On Amazon, you know what shipping and taxes (zero) will cost before you get through the cart. Not so on most other sites. You get shipping sticker shock (maybe because we are used to almost free shipping and no taxes from online retailers). There is also the matter of filling in all the forms. So folks just say Good bye. Wasn't OpenID supposed to help with this problem?

easy.jpgEveryone blames it on the pricing model. Doesn't matter the Industry - books or telecom.  It isn't just price.  It's Value, Trust and Ease.

Value is something that needs to be communicated. If you can't deliver a product - book or telecom service - as cheaply as the giant, you have to accept a smaller market share. You have to deliver Value first and last. You have to build Trust. And you better be easy to deal with from the sale to the end of time. Or you lose. The difference between cost and price is Value. Not everyone sees Value.

There's a number out there - 1000, 2000, 10K, 100K, 1M - the number of customers that you need to have a healthy business selling at your price and delivering your value. It's called a Tribe. Go build it!

When the authors talk about publishers, not all publishers give value. And they do take some control. To self publish (or use Amazon), you have to market your books yourself. In other words, you have to build your Tribe. Some authors do this well, some don't.

In the article, they talk about Amazon being all that is left. That's unlikely, with Apple, Barnes & Noble, Independents and the Big Book Houses. And as much as I rail against WalMart, there are alternatives.

This makes me say look at how Target competes against WalMart. One way is talking about design and the exclusive stuff they offer. It's still clothes, just Bundled better. It's a nicer, cleaner store (User Experience).

So when you are competing against the Giant, think about  these factors: What is your Value? Are you building a Tribe? How are you Bundling your product? How Easy are you to buy from and deal with? Do they Trust you? These are the hallmarks of success.

Read more... [It's Not Just About Price]
 
Get Off the Agents' Back
On Rad's Radar
Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:48

These were my thoughts on the 2011 CPZ that I was a panelist on. These are my thoughts as a reaction to the latest CPZ.

Surprisingly, not everyone read my post about how the whole telecom eco-system is shifting. Agents, Masters, Carriers and Cloud Providers are all going to experience a Shift.

Did you ever see Shift Happens?

Considering all these factors - Quota, Debt, declining revenue, pricing pressure, and flat markets - the future looks bleak for telecom.

Most of the people who were talking on the CPZ 2012 video about transactional agents are not actually agents. Many are not agents and to my knowledge never have been.

Does a subset of Agents shop masters? Probably.

On the other hand, I know masters who shop to sub-agents with "I'll give you another point or two to go with me." Part of this is due to the weight of quota on the Master Agency business. Master Agents are under a tremendous pressure to hit quota to keep the support level and sustain the commission revenue at its current level.

Value and Telecom

The whole Industry talks about VALUE, but can they describe it? Or is it really all a bunch of me-too companies at every level? UNE-P, Integrated T1, SIP Trunking, etc. It's all just a bunch of me-too similar looking and sounding services.

Branding is non-existent in our space, except for the Duopoly of ILEC and MSO. Some value comes from branding. Other value comes from benefits and differentiation.

An example would be how telcos painted cable broadband as a shared service. Yet cable won the broadband war. Without value, it becomes a commodity. Commodities are price shopped. Tell me the difference between any two Internet T1's or any two SIP Trunks.

Carriers are Unhappy with Agents

Just because Agents don't act like you want them to doesn't mean they are all in the wrong. You built this current eco-system. Now you want the ship to turn on your say so. Easier said than done, pal.

And really have you done all you can to give Agents the tools they need to sell your product? Not to be repetitive, but have you established your value statement? Do you know who the target market is? Do you know what triggers the sale? Who is the actual buyer? Answer those questions first.

The Industry wants the Channel to go upstream, except they don't. By that I mean, the carriers want revenue. Period. We all have quota. While they might want an Agent to sell MPLS, they aren't turning away T1 business either.

Keep in mind that it might be that the marketplace doesn't want to go upstream either. Cable is doing an excellent job of disrupting the market and stealing business with cheap loops.

At a CLEC training, it stated that cable would own the sub-$500 business. It was almost like they were ceding it. Yes, the MSO will become the de facto ILEC, while the ILEC's cede that business for more fertile ground (like cellular).

In the training, the CLEC stated that they want Multi-site, multi-access business. Unfortunately, again, they all compete for that same business with the same exact tool. Masergy, Smoothstone, EarthLinke, Megapath, Netwolves, Wind, CenturyLink - just to name a few, compete for that exact business of Multi-site, multi-access. To hear carriers talk, I guess, MPLS is the new Integrated T1 (in every way).

No one buys the way most service providers sell. That's why we are always searching for Consultative Sales Professionals. Because the whole industry sells what they want - and it is followed up by a series of me-too. ... Just because one CLEC is selling Managed Security does not mean that the marketplace wants it or will buy it or that it will want it delivered that exact way. It also doesn't mean that the next eight CLEC's or service providers need to market that same offering. Do we know what the marketplace is expecting?

henry_ford_1919.jpg

How Things Can Shift

One thing that could cause a big shift is if Tech Data became a Master Agent. With TDMobility, they already have the platform and are selling cellular in a Master Agent model. Plus by selling mobile device management, a kind of TEM and all that hardware, they have caught up to the big Masters. CDW could become a Master Agent if they wanted to - and they might have to in order to sell more hardware.

Dell could become a Cloud Provider. As it stands now, they are an MSP Enabler - and Dell is selling CDN! It will be interesting to see what Ingram and SYNNEX - both betting on cloud services for their future - do to not have to compete with Dell head-to-head, while also competing with Tech Data.

I don't think that most telcos will make the shift to managed services and cloud successfully. It's labor intensive. It doesn't scale like telecom. They think they can automate everything, but that only works for cookie cutter stuff. I think MSP's will win this war. Cloud system integrators will win if they partner with VAR's who can handle the on-going maintenance and support that all this technology will require.

Can the Channel change to become Trusted Advisors? Probably not all of them. Selling Cloud is different than selling telecom. Period.

The Channel basically sells replacement services. Here are some examples: VoIP for POTS: SIP Trunk for PRI; Ethernet for T1. Each transaction is replacing like for like. Even MPLS is just a replacement for Frame Relay, ATM and IP-VPN.

That is why selling Hosted PBX and other cloud services are so challenging: It is not a simple replacement. It's not like for like.

The sales process for selling replacement services is pretty easy. When the sale becomes about business process change or fork-lift upgrades (like Hosted UC or Virtual Desktop), the sales skills are different. The sales cycle is different - and longer. Provisioning takes longer. Ultimately, commission payments are much later.

This is really important to remember.

Selling Cloud and Managed Services will not just be more of a challenge, but it may be less satisfying. Why? Transactional sales types are motivated and driven by quick hits and a lot of ink in a month. Extended sales cycles are less motivating to this type of sales person.

Moreover, as commissions decline with the price decreases, agents have to sell more and more to maintain their revenue goals. Shifting to new products, new sales skills, and a different sales approach will be a huge leap, especially without training, a financial cushion, a deep desire for change, and vendor support.

Agents are not FARMERS! They are Hunters! They do not do Account Management, cross-sell or upsell to the base. Smart agencies will higher a couple of farmers to work the customer base and perform account management.

All of this makes me wonder who will be the Agent of tomorrow, who will be grooming accounts and performing consultative selling of complex solutions to their customers?

Read more... [Get Off the Agents' Back]
 
USTelecom Wants Forbearance for all ILECs
On Rad's Radar
Monday, 09 April 2012 10:36

We once fancifully debated if the ILEC's would LET the cablecos get ahead just so they could get out from under regulations. This was 2006. Apparently, that was the plan.

USTelecom is an organization made up of ILEC's. The org has filed for forbearance at the FCC on behalf of its members. Not certain THAT is legal.

The petition [pdf] comes from the ILEC executives "essentially telling the FCC that it's time to wake up and smell the coffee--"many rules were adopted in a different era, long before the advent of broadband networks or the creation of the public Internet."," as JSI describes it. JSI continues with, "it might be time for a new regulatory regime as even the 96 Act is becoming less and less relevant with each new cord cutter and cross-platform conglomerate. The petition is also in line with the White House and Congress' push to get the FCC to clean house, and "the Commission's commitment to eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements.""

The petition states, "Forbearance is warranted because the rules have been rendered obsolete by technological and market changes. From a technological standpoint, the Commission's legacy telecommunications regulations are ill-suited to facilitating, and in fact hamper, broadband deployment." I'm not sure that's true. It hasn't hampered DSL; the LEC's have by not deploying, switching to fiber and, quite frankly, arrogantly thinking that they were still a Monopoly. In every respect, the trouble with ILEC's is NOT the federal (or dwindling state) regulations. The trouble with the ILEC's is a Monopoly Mindset.

They don't choose the best technology nor do the deploy technology well. Mismanaged spectrum just being a symptom.

FiOS failed because the numbers forecast was wrong. Basing it on 50% penetration was a mistake. Not considering that it would take 2 techs all day (or longer) to install triple-play FiOS. Thinking that the CPE - all 4 pieces of equipment - would be cheap to install.

Let's also look at three bigger problems for ILEC's Pensions, Unions, and USF. By shifting to a cellular and entertainment companies, the RBOCs - AT&T and Verizon - are moving toward a non-union shop. AT&T is dealing with CWA union contracts right now - and VZ had to deal with them last year (along with a strike). They want to eliminate the union. Cellular, entertainment, cloud and outsourced services mean less Union liability - and less pension liability. The ILEC's - Embarq, VZ, ATT, Qwest - are sitting on a chunk of pension payments. It's just another example of bad planning by the executives running these corporations. I know in my life time I will see one of these companies file BK papers. With all the debt they have - $109B just for the Big 2 - mixed with declining revenues, pension payments, probably healthcare costs, union troubles and hyper-competition, the C-Suites at the ILEC's - all of them - are as ill-suited to run them as Hesse is to turn Sprint around.

einstein.jpg

A Forbearance petition is nice, but it won't solve any of their problems.

With USF Reform, the RLEC's - and even some ILEC's (FFW+C) - will be in even more trouble. Not just competition and dwindling access lines, but decreasing government subsidies for those access lines PLUS a requirement to build out broadband, which means CAPEX! It is not a pretty horizon.

As I read this paragraph all I can think is: Monopoly MIndset is the problem, not FCC regulations. And claiming that it is regs that have created the current quagmire is sticking your head in the sand.

"Indeed, the most recent survey by the Center for Disease Control (which has been relied upon previously by the Commission) has found that more than 32 percent of households have completely "cut the cord" and have abandoned their wireline phone altogether. .... At the same time, incumbent carriers compete against a host of providers, including cable companies that offer service to at least 93 percent of American households, already serve approximately 20 percent of the residential voice market, and are the primary provider of residential broadband. Under these competitive circumstances, the current outdated regulatory regime imposes unnecessary costs on a limited subset of competitors to the detriment of these competitors and consumers alike." Plus it's a Duopoly. There isn't much competition in the Broadband space. It's DSL, cable or 3G.

Comments or Oppositions Due: April 9, 2012 TODAY>

And of course COMPTEL has filed opposition.

Category 10 (Service Discontinuance Approval Requirements); Category 9 (Rules Governing Notices of Network Changes); and Category 2: (Open Network Architecture and Comparably Efficient Interconnection Requirements, All-Carrier Computer Inquiry Rules and the Structural Separation Rule) would really make CLEC life miserable.

Think about this when thinking about regulations being the issue: "According to the Telecommunications Industry Association, wireless has become the preferred voice-services option. Wireless revenue in 2012 is forecast at $335 billion, while all other forms of fixed network voice revenue will only total $176 billion ($132 billion for wireline, $38 billion for broadband access and $6 billion in cable/television revenue)." Is it regulations doing this or our mobile culture? De-regulating ILECs will mostly hurt SMB who are the profit center of ITSP and CLEC businesses.

One last point: voice is being replaced by Skype, G+, Facebook, IM, chat, SMS, and other types of communications. These innovations were NOT brought to you by the telcos NOR will any innovation because they have a Monopoly Mindset. And that mindset screams: "We want to make more money off our old plumbing without having to morph, change or innovate!"

There's no fixing that.

Read more... [USTelecom Wants Forbearance for all ILECs]
 
3 Billion Dollar Deals
On Rad's Radar
Monday, 09 April 2012 10:05

Apparently, $1B is not a lot of money. Three deals today - all at $1B.

Facebook bought Instagram, a photo-sharing app, for $1B.

Microsoft paid $1B for 800 AOL patents. Who knew AOL even had 800 patents?  Now they can fund Patch some more.

AT&T sold a majority stake in its Yellow Pages unit for $950 Million. "Private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management has agreed to acquire a majority stake of AT&T's Yellow Pages business unit, which will be rebranded under the name YP Holdings LLC. AT&T will still maintain a 47 percent equity interest in the new entity but will hand over the controlling stake in the unit to Cerberus for $750 million in cash and the assumption of $200 million in debt." It must be short term gains that Cerberus is after, because with search going to Google and Facebook, how does YP.com monetize?

Read more... [3 Billion Dollar Deals]
 
Another iPad App
On Rad's Radar
Thursday, 05 April 2012 08:28
I get an email daily about how someone launched an iPad app. Wahoo. Apparently, launching an app is now a media event.

People forget a couple of important details:

The Cloud is all about High Availability of data. If you want people to use your service, end users must be able to access their data on your platform from whatever Internet-enabled device they use. Apple, Blackberry, Android, Windows - doesn't matter.

The iPad app shouldn't just be about data access. What makes the app any better than just using the website? It has to either make the business process easier or it has to be enhanced. It shouldn't be like the LinkedIn apps that I have seen, which offer limited functionality.

Just giving your sales force an iPad doesn't make them better. But designing an app that can access network maps, lit buildings, collateral, service inquiries, quoting tool and forms might make them more efficient, which is the aim.

At some point, having a couple of hundred icons on your device to access every website you need is going to get arduous. Scrolling through bookmarks in your browser is easier. Unless that app is awesome and useful, it gets relegated to the back of the line.

So, as a note, stop sending me your press releases about your iPad/Android app releases.

Read more... [Another iPad App]
 
The Telecom Ecosystem is Shifting Rapidly
On Rad's Radar
Monday, 02 April 2012 13:02

The telecom ecosystem consists of a number of pieces: RBOC, ILEC, RLEC, CLEC, ISP, MSO, IXC, ITSP, MSP, data centers, Master Agents, Agents, VAR's. It is shifting.

As carriers migrate from a commodity access business, so too must the master agents, who - more and more - are tying their business models to the preferred carriers.

Master Agents have morphed into a supermarket of services: CLEC, ILEC, MSO, VoIP, MSP and even hardware (like Shoretel). In some respects, the master agents become the fabric for a quote machine. Basically, the machine churns out quotes from a number of carriers. This approach makes busy work for agents, masters, channel managers. It's only necessary because of a lack of value proposition. There is no clear delineation of specialties for the service providers. Not even from their preferred partners.

More and more masters look like Tech Data.

The Masters are going to have figure out their value proposition to the Channel soon too.

So are the CLEC's. All the mergers are just about complete, so before we start another round of M&A (or worse a round of Bankruptcy filings), could we just hear you clearly tell the Channel what your sweet spot is going to be?

Clearly and concisely - not in 71 slides over 2+ hours - but in one sentence (or a tweet), tell the Channel what we should go to you for?

Tech Data offers 3 of the 4 cellcos services and XO services, through TDMobility. It is a small step to become a Master Agent and add 50 carriers. The difference is that TD offers hardware. It's a one stop shop. And the commission reconciliation is done by TD, not me! YEAH!

SYNNEX and Ingram are in Cloud. (No idea the details because the PR reads like someone swallowed a buzz word infographic.) But if these two VAD's start brokering SAAS services, it makes for an interesting day. In fact, if they acquired or partnered with VAR Dynamics, they would hit a SAAS home run.

Next up is Dell. Dell bought SonicWall and WYSE. It clearly has a strategy. My guess is that Dell will want to be the whole distribution system for VAR's in an MSP world. In other words, hardware, devices, cloud services and managed services will all be sold by the VAR channel with Dell providing the back office and the engine. Dell will become a Managed Services provider Enabler.

Transactional Agents will just ride it out. I hear it in their voice. Some will sell Hosted VoIP and some other services, but the comfort zone is on replacement services.  It is very difficult to go from selling replacement services to basically selling insurance (or the invisible).

VAR's are the goal of everyone right now: Carriers, Agents, Cisco, etc. Are they the holy grail? Unlikely. VAR's deal with hardware and delivering their own services. Autotask and Connectwise are a platform to allow them to bill, schedule, monitor, etc. That competes with the carriers.

VAR's, like CLEC's, like control (or more accurately the illusion of control). Telco services with fluid port dates, demarc issues, and other unstable moving pieces are not what they are looking to add.

To be honest, I don't think that the telcos will win the managed services game. They can barely deliver on telco services these days, so how are they going to deliver on software, apps, security and other managed, hands-on, skilled services? Not to mention, the CAPEX of delivering on these services. What CLEC is flush with cash? Most are flush with debt and price pressures are resulting in flat or declining revenue.

Moreover, with the way Agents have been treated as of late (in quite a few noteworthy instances), I'm not certain VAR's will not be enticed to come join that party of MRR.

There are many reasons why I think that cablecos will become the new ILECs and LECs will flounder outside of telco.

IDC SVP & Chief Analyst Frank Gens said, "Volume is going way, way up and price is going way, way down. If [technology companies are] going to drive large-enough volumes to support the revenue levels they're used to, they're going to have to drive the number of customers way up. You'll need millions of customers in order to compete." Gens was talking about software, but it is the same for ISP services, cellular, TV, and voice.

Take conferencing as an example. Why don't the IXC's own that market? It's just a bridge and minutes. Instead Skype, Vidyp and other start-ups have picked that market apart. Even Webex owned by Cisco didn't innovate and own that market. Conferencing is an example of Cloud Communications and SAAS, right? But telcos don't own it. Software companies do. Layer 7 companies. Not Layer 1 companies.

Hosted PBX is another example. ILEC's owned Centrex. Many of them had installed Broadsoft boxes (but were only using it for SIP Trunking). So that market is about 1000+ strong of tiny players picking off low hanging fruit - disrupting the whole sector. Again, telcos did not dominate this segment. Sure there are a lot of reasons for this, but excuses are just excuses. Comcast will probably be the largest player in the Hosted PBX space.

How about data center? ILEC's had space and were colo landlords early, but just didn't want that game. Until now.

And Master Agents just follow the carriers. It's not like they are straying far from the center either. A couple of Masters have TEM platforms. It's a start. But none (that I know of) jumped on the SAAS game early. It's just an example of an ecosystem that follows each other and navel gazes. The main reason is due to the compensation system. Quota is a stern parent.

When I look at what Parallels is pulling together - 350+ apps to API through their portal layer - I see them leapfrogging ahead of the game - or more precisely, creating their own game.

VAR Dynamics does something similar by white-labeling SAAS for anyone to sell. This is the next piece of the puzzle. Network Access, then Apps. Agents already sell some network access. The key is to sell all kinds of network access and a ton of value-adds (like storage, backup, security, compliance). Think like Apple or Google: it's all about the Apps store! Whether that store is run by VAR Dynamics, Parallels, SYNNEX or Ingram, Agents have to find a way to get a piece of that. Why? Because transactional sales is producing less and less revenue and commissions. Last year a GigE port in 56 Marietta in Atlanta was going for $1500 on the low end. Now it's $500. The high end last year was $20K for a GigE; today it is $8K. Revenue is declining; thus, commissions are declining. Agents have to chase more and more deals to make a living.

I propose that Agents have to learn to vacuum. By that I mean, voice, broadband, mobility, security, apps, and other add-ons. Get the whole pie!

The Ecosystem of Telecom is shifting - for everyone. Either shift with it or not.

Read more... [The Telecom Ecosystem is Shifting Rapidly]
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 4 of 137