thanks for the update. i'm not too concerned that sales are hw. sip penetration is only half way and sons has the highly successful carrier grade 7000 cash cow with the entire world requiring interconnect and carry. just like old times in the gw biz. if 2H picks up then we have 70-80m q's. high margins, nice cash generation, no debt. sons would be trimming workforce if things were gloom. pretty safe investment, sons is the hauling king and i see this metric growing in a carrier space that is predictable and healthy.
greenquist is a straight shooter when he does these conferences. i wont say he is doing the conference because they have the pokerhand.
sonus would put cisco squarely in the carrier space into the smarts of the network. cisco has no carrier class sbc, especially one that participates in sdn orchestration. sons has tomorrows solution that no one seems to be buying yet. if cisco is so smart then they will snap up opportunities like this. but wdik, not much based on my etrade statements.
cisco has tons of cash doing nothing for them. I'm hoping Robbins is sees the future better than chambers. chambers has been pushing their non standard all-in-1 solutions for a long time.
maybe sons takes itself private first. then its all venture capital and corp bond holders that hash it out privately. so if sh approves 12 bucks then sons gets the money from the vc and turns it over to sh. i think 15 bucks should be the offer otherwise you have lawsuits since sons paid off investors at higher levels and bought back shares at higher levels. i doubt whoever is backing gb has that kind of money at 15. i think cisco could do it with their coffee room budget though. why they haven't is a mystery because sons carrier grade sbc all working in virtual is worth 15 bucks every day of the week. managed iot will run on sbc's.
if i was cisco, jnpr or palo i would spend 1b on sonus with little thought or consternation. i strongly believe the sbc will be the smarts of the new networks. i understand there will be hybrid comms at the carriers for many so old and new technologies need to interoperate - hence the need for sbc's to do rt conversion. so with in this sense a genband is smoothest choice for the carriers since the fw vendors are not really in the carrier mode wrgt legacy comms. so i guess this leaves cisco, alu, eric as the most likely counter suitors and perhaps not the pure fw vendors.
with T's 20b yearly capex budget I suspect that does the talking whether sons and genband get together - a monumental transformation is about to take place for the carriers. i figured the 600m figure was on top of the cash so let's call it 740m. it explains why sons spent down their cash position. too much cash on the books makes for a tougher deal for sons shareholders. sadly, sons could have saved their cash and gone after broadsoft. genband has a sw comm product so maybe this is a better union.
1600 employees. walsh - ceo was a former investment banker. if they merge, sounds like dolan might be a better ceo candidate. walsh the chairman perhaps.
there was a hackathon last week for att for webrtc using genband product kandy - platform as a service. so that settles the issue if T's webrtc sdk that i was talking about was a sons product.
"The Kandy mobile app, fring, is in use by more than 12M users. Multinational software corporation, SAP, embeds Kandy real time communications into its Customer Engagement and Commerce solution." so i guess i take back my comment that gb is legacy. i may be coming around...
dolan bought a lot of shares at much higher cost basis than todays sp. from what i can ferret out genband has about 1b in annual sales. they seem to be pretty aggressive in the telco space, lots of awards and a sw based comm suite, 550m of venture capital. it's not a public company though. so what would a merger do, create a bigger public company with genband at the helm? or would it take sons private with it. if genband has seen a total of 550m in venture cap since its inception, how will they buy sons at 600m other than offering sons sh a stake in gb? how do we get a stake in a private company? 600m is a steal considering sons could pull a 280m rev this year at 70% margins. for add on work this is worth a lot more to gb.
genband is so blackbox, little info out there as to their sales, cash, debt etc. I was glad years ago sons didnt go after nortels assets. genband seems old school though. if the world is moving to virt telco apps then sons is in the catbird seat with its product portfolio. i would think a hp, vmware, emc, palo, juniper or cisco could do better with sons assets. if telco is moving to all software then the notion of genband getting it done does not instill confidence in me. the old argument that a big customer (t) wants it done so they have less vendors to deal with is also an old school concept since open standards is the norm.
so went from dolan saying things never looked better while at a 1b cap to going to a 400m cap with a rumor offer at 600m. maybe we should take the 600m and move on with our lives, nothing to see here.
sync is blasting up today. says they will have 300m in revs. I could see its cap goto at least 300m from current 100m. i will stick with sons and hope it does the same some day. first comes the portal, then comes the smarts infrastructure. i'm going to assume that T customers can click a button for various services. $.
perhaps. im a little fuzzy what happens to higher level (app) traffic over firewalls with regards to emerging sdn nfv paradigm. vellos may instruct a fw to open a port and allow traffic from here to there etc. what happens after that it seems the sbc needs to look at such as service denials, spoofing, transport security. i dont see how deferring the roll of app security and firewall traffic security back to the traditional model can be done with high volume realtime performance in mind. the sbc has eyes into the app traffic. everything i know tells me the new model is extremely disruptive for vendors in the traditional model. we may see more nimble vendors tag onto the sbc and the traditional players dragging their feet like cisco has been doing for years. if palo is indeed buying in I would not be surprised knowing the palo solution.
hopefully sons is staying vendor firewall and app security agnostic. the fw and app security vendors need to fully participate in the new model. currently I would say they are shut out due to the inversion of control of the provisioning and access layer. ie. the fw is configured by the apps. panw is the gold standard these days. I am involved with a 120,000 client network that dumped cisco and went with palo. I wouldn't want to see sons target any one fw vendor rather i want to see api's so fw vendors can participate. juniper is no slouch and at this point the only partner I have seen involved with sons.
look at the stock of fireeye. the recent quarter, the stepdown of ceo. this was a 90 buck stock. I dont know if its related but there is a pause in spending in fw type app security devices like fire that deep dive into the app comm layer. with the inversion, feye needs to run virtual and invited in by the sbc. how can feye look at app security if the encryption, orchestration and security is in the app layer? hopefully sons see this conundrum and invites the vendors in with api's but the reality is that Goliath may need to concede control to david. very disruptive stuff. fire and palo are on the gov panel with dolan. they must be talking. i think sons should have feye valuation based on what we all know about the carriers reference design.
att is using the IMS model so my guess is that att devices on their fixed and mobile networks will use a managed security and connections method .ie policy and access. would T do ott when they are already so far behind the ott leaders? there needs to be some value added, features that bring in revenues. I would say this is the first leg for T to start building an entertainment solution that is smarter than the ott's. everything i read about synacor is that they are over the top. no mention of sdn or orchestration. why would T require their vendors to build into their sdn model and have their portal be ott? dumping ya hou "so i dont get sensored by ya hou" and going with a small tech firm is promising.
att dropping yahoo for portal going with Synacor, they specialize in video on demand and monetizing client visits. something to watch - see if synacor starts building into the att session model. synacor is over the top services, find it hard to believe that is T's strategy. Synacor stock went ballistic yesterday.
i got a proxy vote from etrade for the june annual meeting. maybe the program traders jumped on the announcement. maybe someday I will attend the meeting, I dont think my shopping cart will make it to westford.
i thought of a audc buyout. 34m/q is nothing to sneeze at and I think audc is much behind with the cloud orchestration piece, with volte, diameter, webrtc. i'm not sure theres any value added for sons though. audc is a solid sbc company. sons squandered a lot of their excess cash that could have been used for this. audio would have to agree to neutral offer, not much premium. use the 650 employees to ramp iot and the cloud. the sell to audio sh would be that sons will move the needle quicker with their cloud and virtual footing.
their biz model is solid, margins are good, but i was confused as to his explanation of why the stock price is low, he says its because of low volume. he said he wants to do buyback, but wouldnt a buyback reduce the float and hurt liquidity?
just read it. 650 employees, lots going in UC and skype for biz. half their sales are in NA. they see a healthy area for service providers to get out of pstn due to land line loses to UC/ip suites. basically confirms sons stance that sip trunk biz is strong and growing. what stands out to me is how sons has this area covered but sons has catapulted itself into cloud,sdn,nfv and orchestration. for sons we have to assume this is being driven by one or more large embedded projects, perhaps something audc has not had the opportunity for. audc is going against polycom and mitel for ip phones. takeaway - audc is a solid company and will do well with uc, skype , bsft, enterprise sbc projects, they a nice win with DT which i thought was a sons customer..