How often has a carrier account manager conditioned a particular response to you around what he or she "can do" or "has to do" in light of corporate directives? Pretty often, I bet. Carriers find it convenient to tie the hands of their people in the field around various sourcing and operational requirements -- or at least let account teams give the impression that their hands are tied.

Keep that in mind the next time you're dealing with the mixed blessing of a corporate directive from your company. Obviously many telecom buyers are hearing demands from senior management for specific and immediate cost savings -- a double-edged sword that can lead to manipulation by carriers when these demands come out into the open. But you may also be dealing with a new set of additional mandates rooted in the pressure that companies feel to standardize the procurement function in today's economically stressed environment.

These mandates come under many names and cross the boundaries between sourcing and ongoing operations. You may have a "Supplier Governance" process that you have to instruct your carriers and equipment vendors to follow. There may be a set of "Procurement Compliance" procedures that you receive from higher-ups and must be satisfied. You may now even have a "Chief Procurement Officer" to deal with, to go along with the demands of CFOs and other top executives.

Even if you don't hear these terms in your company, you may be part of an over-arching IT organization with a steadily increasing diet of standard demands that alternately assist and hinder you in your job. Some companies even try to force standardized IT agreements onto the telecom process -- misunderstanding the unique structure of telecom agreements and making it more difficult to include critical, telecom-oriented terms and conditions.

Of course, IT organizations are also very concerned about data security, both in a generic sense and in terms of industry-specific mandates that derive from legislation in the healthcare, banking and other fields. But sometimes, generic IT requirements just impose an additional layer of bureaucracy and makework in the supplier-user relationship. These extra requirements can present a mixed message about priorities to your key suppliers when they overwhelm the process.

The key here is to harness these "facts of life" in today's environment to your advantage, instead of letting them control you. One way to harness them is to let suppliers know that both sides of the negotiation are operating under mandates, so their mandate isn't the only one that counts.

Take the issue of billing. Companies love to standardize terms for their accounts payable, and they often pressure their managers (such as you) to enforce them with all their vendors. Up to a point, that's a great help. Carriers need to be told not to require silly terms, such as 30 days to pay a bill after a "bill date" that they arbitrarily assign and may not represent actual delivery of the bill.

But telecom billing platforms do have notorious built-in legacies, and some enterprise-wide billing mandates can have the counterproductive effect of forcing a demand into RFPs that none of the bidding carriers will accept. That leaves you without an effective stick to meet your company's mandate. It's an example of what can happen when a mandate controls you rather than you utilizing it to your advantage (such as putting yourself in a position to negotiate the carrier rep away from his or her company's mandate).

The bottom line is that you can't wait until everyone's gathered around the negotiating table to start whining about what bureaucratic checkpoints you need to fulfill. Determining requirements up front in a competitive RFP (or other initial sourcing communication) helps settle what sort of mandates you will need to get from carriers even if they aren't core to the telecom process, and where you are willing and able to go to the mat for a particular requirement.

Do this work up front, and you'll be better prepared to "trade points" with carriers and their actual or perceived corporate requirements. In the end, it'll make it far easier for you to put the energy of the procurement on the core pricing, service levels, and key terms that you know you need for your network rather than let the process get overwhelmed and sidelined by other issues.

One of the shocks that people often get with their first stock market investment is finding out what a stockholder really is. People often buy stocks thinking they're getting a "piece of the pie" along with the other stockholders. But that's only true if the company doesn't owe anybody any money. Debt holders go to the front of the line, way ahead of stockholders. If there's no pie left after the debt holders finish eating, then the stockholders are out of luck, no matter how good the company's story is or how innovative its products appear to be.

When you a sign a term contract with a carrier, you should think like a bondholder. Do you deserve service ahead of the stockholders? Of course you do. In fact, your term contract with a vendor creates one of the many layers of obligations that it holds ahead of the need to pay off stockholders. But if it can't pay off the bondholders, your carrier's performance is bound to suffer.

In recent months we've begun to see a gratifying upsurge in the number and quality of proposals from telecom carriers other than the AT&Ts and Verizons of the world for specific enterprise-class services. Many are getting their bearings around new services like SIP trunking and related, fully integrated voice/data networks over very high-capacity lines.

But more often than not, these carriers have sorry-looking stock charts that seem never to have recovered from the tech/telecom bust of almost a decade ago. Or they have strange financial histories littered with bankruptcies and buyouts by unfamiliar entities that seem to come out of a dark corner of Wall Street and have nothing else to do with telecom. That naturally makes these carriers a difficult sell within your organization.

You and your management have a right to be suspicious of carriers that look bad in the stock market, but this suspicion should lead to further investigation. Instead of tossing out a carrier because of its stock chart, a bond-like analysis is often a better idea. But it's tricky. Once you know how much debt a carrier has, what does it really mean? What do you compare it to -- the carrier's revenues, operating margins, profits, or what?

For enterprises, the key is the connection to the term of the contract you're being asked to consider. In a way, signing a three-year contract with a carrier is like issuing a three-year bond to the carrier. Just as the bondholder must be paid back in three years, you must receive service for three years. In fact, whatever the length of contract is before you, it's probably best to add one year to the deal for the purpose of this analysis, in order to account for ramping down the old service after awarding a replacement service to a new carrier.

At the upcoming Telecom Negotiation Conference in Washington, I'll be presenting some bond-maturity charts for carriers. Instead of showing the gross level of overall debt, these charts show on a year-by-year basis the amount of debt maturing in given years like 2012, 2013, 2014 and beyond. Making sure your contract expiration comes before a year with a large "balloon" in your carrier's debt is a good idea.

It may even be a good negotiation tactic to have this specific information in hand. But year-by-year debt maturities often have to be calculated from individual bond disclosures by companies in their SEC filings. It's not as easy as going to one of the popular financial websites and looking up a chart, as it would be if you were just looking at their stocks!

Be aware that actually having debt is not necessarily worse than the situation that some other carriers are in -- having no debt because of a past bankruptcy, but also having very concentrated ownership because of the way they were brought out of bankruptcy. That's another trade-off I'll be discussing in my breakout session, called "The Status and Prospects of the Telecom Providers."

See the full Telecom Negotiation agenda for details. Along with the rest of the TC2 and LB3 presenters, I look forward to the opportunity to meet you in Washington!

In the following guest post, TC2's London-based managing director Ben Fox continues his comments about the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.

Besides the increasing momentum for establishing LTE as a global mobile broadband standard, the other very interesting announcement from Barcelona came from Verizon Wireless and Skype. The two companies reported that, beginning in late March, Verizon Wireless will allow subscribers to use Skype's IP voice application over its network.

By downloading the Skype application to their Verizon Wireless smartphones, end users will be able to call other Skype users around the world for free. This represents a significant change of heart from a carrier (and indeed an industry) that to date has been very territorial in terms of allowing users to take advantage of applications that could reduce its own revenue.

So what's in it for Verizon Wireless? The answer is data revenues. As I noted last month, Verizon Wireless' strategy is currently focused on driving the penetration of data services. And for Verizon Wireless users to be able to use Skype, they will need to subscribe to a voice and data plan.

No doubt Verizon Wireless has calculated that the lost voice revenues from Skype usage will be more than offset by the increased data plan revenues and by the increased adoption of the smartphones that will be needed to use Skype, which typically drive increased average revenue per user (ARPU) compared to more basic devices. Perhaps they're even anticipating a further compensation for lost voice revenues in the increased revenue from the higher ETFs associated with these types of devices and plans!

Skype and Verizon Wireless stated that their agreement is "exclusive", although it is unclear what that really means, since the Skype application has been available for some time on AT&T Mobility's network via the iPhone. Perhaps Verizon Wireless's thinking is that AT&T users have so far only been to use Skype over WiFi, not 3G, access. But a version that operates on GSM/HSPA is supposed to be pending.

Of course Skype does not tend to be an application that large enterprises actively roll out and support for their end-users, so this might have limited initial relevance to business users. However, using Skype (and similar VoIP applications) on a smartphone whilst roaming on WiFi networks to save money, compared to paying $1+ a minute to roam on a GSM network in a foreign country, is a far more intuitive and "traditional" phone experience than using a soft phone (Skype or otherwise) on your laptop. So there is certainly money-saving potential in this area for enterprise customers.

But the more important takeaway for the business user from this Skype/Verizon Wireless announcement is the continuing shift in focus for wireless carriers all around the globe from voice revenues to data revenues, driven by the evolution of all cell phones into smartphones. Similar announcements in 2010 already include Google's Nexus One, Windows Phone 7 for mobiles, the Wholesale Applications Community mobile application alliance, and carriers announcing increased after-sales support for smartphone users. These all demonstrate the importance of smartphones to the carriers and the pressure that all carriers, manufacturers and software developers are under to get ahead of the pack and differentiate their smartphone service offerings.

Although much of the initial adoption of the more innovative services (such as the iPhone and Apple's application store) has been driven by consumers, the carriers, manufacturers and software developers now have business users firmly in their sights. Google has already been talking about a version of its Nexus One aimed at business users, and in the UK, Vodafone is specifically targeting business users in its iPhone adverts.

The bottom line is that we are already seeing business end-users at our clients pressuring their telecoms departments to offer an increasing array of smartphone devices, not the least of which is the iPhone, as well as a rich variety of new services and applications. A BlackBerry that only provides voice calling, email, calendar and contact directory functions is no longer enough! Mobile device management, rather than getting easier, will become exponentially more challenging.

On the other hand, when the world ultimately moves to a single global mobile standard -- LTE -- the job of managing your enterprise's global mobility requirements should become somewhat easier, though I'm afraid that the impact of LTE will be a ripple on the ocean compared to the tsunami of challenges presented by user demands for an ever increasing range of smartphone applications and functionality.

The following is a guest post by TC2 managing director Ben Fox, who is based in London.

This week's 2010 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona has been the setting for a number of significant developments in the global mobile marketplace. One of the most significant for enterprise users is the announcement that China Telecom, KDDI and Verizon Wireless, three of the world's largest CDMA operators, have joined the GSM Association (GSMA).

The force that is bridging the CDMA and GSM worlds is the worldwide adoption of the Long Term Evolution (LTE) 3+G (or 4G, depending on the day) standard.

This week's GSMA announcement is further proof that the world is moving to a single global mobile standard, which would bring benefits to all parties, including mobile device manufacturers, carriers and end-users. All parties, that is, except those who don't adopt the standard!

Device manufacturers will be able to focus all their efforts on a single technology platform. Carriers will be able to seamlessly interwork with each other -- even Verizon Wireless and Vodafone, whose incompatible technologies have made them strange bedfellows up until now. And ultimately, we hope, end users won't need to worry about their Verizon Wireless smartphone not working when they travel to Europe (although they will undoubtedly still need to worry about the cost of international roaming).

U.S. users also should not overlook the importance of China Telecom and KDDI joining at the same time as Verizon Wireless. China Telecom is the largest state-owned telecom operator in China, and KDDI is Japan's second-largest cellular operator. We're going to be watching China Telecom's next steps in this space very closely, because historically Chinese carriers have specifically avoided adopting western technologies and instead sought to develop their own solutions. This could signal the beginning of the end of that policy.

Of course the elephant in the room that the announcement ignores is WiMax, the competing 4G technology. Despite being first to market, WiMax does not appear to reach the projected speeds of LTE and, much more importantly, has far less backing from heavyweight global carriers.

Thus describing it as an elephant is probably far too generous. WiMax no doubt has a future in certain key areas such as fixed wireless and greenfield infrastructure builds, but the fact is that the major players are all lining up behind LTE, which makes LTE the hot favourite for the future global mobile standard.

In fact, in a number of ways the world's leading carriers are either acknowledging or finally catching up to technological reality, and this isn't the only announcement from Barcelona that bears this out. Verizon Wireless and Skype have announced that Verizon Wireless will enable Skype calling over its network. I'll have some thoughts about that for the enterprise segment tomorrow.

You might have thought that the IP convergerce era would have brought in easier networks and simpler contracts. You know, buy one service from one carrier, have it do everything, sign a single document where all the conditions for buying that service are lumped together, and plan to work 9-5 during the term of the deal.

Of course, things haven't worked out that way. Complexity is built into the very act of installing new technologies that render faster and more flexible results for end-users. That's true for the network engineering side, the provisioning and service levels, and the contract deal itself.

One way in which we see this is in the carriers' reaction to innovative mechanisms in terms and conditions. Carriers like to set up a game of whack-a-mole whereby they try to offset apparent new flexibility in one contract idea with a straitjacket somewhere else.

The reason they usually get away with this relates to a simple truth in telecom and networking: Nobody rips out an entire network at once and immediately replaces it with another. New services are usually additive. That gives carriers a self-replenishing supply of rate elements on which to sneak in restrictive conditions that prevent you from riding down the market price.

We often see this in both explicit and implicit terms that apply to individual circuits. A per-circuit term plan that applies to a newly installed circuit (often a very high-cap metro or national circuit, and/or a new WAN technology such as Ethernet or an MPLS-like add-on to an Internet connection) has the effect of canceling out a "no-commitment" overall deal. Controlling the procurement process within your company is key here. Carriers know that new or naive CIOs who want to "make their mark" by forcing telecom vendors into what are superficially no-commitment, top-level contracts are fodder for this kind of misdirection.

A stealth variant of this is an innocuous-sounding "minimum payment term" slipped into a separate pricing schedule for a new data and/or VoIP service being rolled out to many locations. If the term is expressed as applying to a certain percentage of the affected circuits, and the service involved is your growth platform, then you've bought yourself a treadmill: A fixed percentage of the installed circuits subject to a minimum payment term will become a continuously increasing number of circuits installed at later and later dates. By the time you've finished rolling out your network, the minimum payment term of this one element will exceed the expiration date of your overall contract.

Try re-negotiating lower rates in the middle of this kind of deal, and you may see that what seemed like a good price at the beginning of the contract can no longer be matched to the market. What you want instead is an airtight deal that flows to your benefit from start to finish on both prices and terms, where each quantitative and qualitative element complements all the others.

These are the kinds of critical considerations you must know about at the beginning of your procurement process rather than the end when it's too late. They're what my TC2 colleagues Jack Deal and Larry York, along with LB3's Andrew Brown, will be addressing in a session called "Blueprint for a Successful Procurement: 7 First Steps to Maximize Leverage" at the 2010 Telecom Negotiation Conference in Washington, D.C. on March 11-12.

Past attendees of Telecom Negotiation, chaired as always by LB3's Hank Levine, will tell you the conference is about as chock-full of meaty detail as anything they've ever gone to. I'll also be speaking along with a number of other TC2 consultants and LB3 attorneys about the latest in the art and science of negotiating fully coherent telecom deals that actually deliver market-based benefits both now and going forward.

Check out the full agenda and other conference information. I look forward to the opportunity to see you next month here in Washington!

It used to be an article of faith that telecom carriers knew how to be Washington players and IT vendors didn't. Decades of Washington experience gave the "RBOCs" and "long distance carriers" hooks into the regulatory scene. A CEO like Ed Whitacre of SBC, the forerunner of today's AT&T, spent much if not most of his day on public policy and regulatory matters, including all those lawsuits SBC used get into with other carriers and the FCC. I'm sure all that focus on federal issues comes in handy now that Whitacre runs the essentially government-owned GM.

Software and hardware vendors, by contrast, were babes in the woods when it came to politics. Typically their CEOs wanted to spend all their days working on their company's products ... silly them! When the U.S. government hauled Microsoft into court in the 1990s for trying to perpetuate a monopoly in operating software, much was made of Bill Gates' shock and ignorance over the ways of Washington.

In fact, it was the Microsoft antitrust case that began to radically change this perspective among IT vendors. Now the big, famous players have become heavy hitters inside the Beltway. It's partly in that light that telecom managers should understand this week's headlines about Google wanting to get into the telecom business by building ultra-fast broadband connections.

Google sits on one side of a debate in Washington over the concept of "net neutrality." That's the notion, which Google supports, that providers must be essentially "agnostic" about the applications sent over their networks. The companies that control the pipes -- the telcos and the cable companies -- pretty much all oppose this idea, saying that net neutrality is an appealing-sounding euphemism for outlawing traffic engineering. The carriers are happy to assert that the same concept applied to enterprise networks would get in the way of your making sure that voice, video and certain data apps get expedited treatment.

Of course, you buy these services from the carriers, so traffic engineering is necessitated by the resource constraint you face -- your budget for buying overall bandwidth to dozens, hundreds or thousands of sites. The carriers build these networks, so arguably they're in control of rolling out as much capacity as they want. Naturally they can claim that money doesn't grow on trees even for them, but part of Google's point appears to be that the carriers can do better and Google's going to show them how.

But in order to do that, Google is going to have to go through the slog of partnering with municipalities for rights of way, franchise fees and all the flora and fauna of facilities-based telecommunications down to the last mile. And even they say it's really a testbed, not coincidentally announced just before the FCC is due to release a National Broadband Plan. Whether Google would really push for net neutrality after building a network of their own is clearly the impression they want to give, but not at all certain in reality.

So it's easy to toss Google's initial announcement to the side as being impractical and short of any scale to matter to enterprises. But there are a couple of things to keep in mind as more news comes out about this.

One is that IT vendors really do get peeved at the telecom industry for what they see as insolence and manipulation of the timeline for rolling out universal high-speed access. Some years ago Cisco CEO John Chambers castigated the RBOCs for purportedly costing him measurable earnings per share by being more interested in merging with one another than building out fiber to the home (and indeed, it took cable entry into high-speed Internet access to get the telcos off their duff).

The other thing is that Google has enormous capital, even by telecom standards, to do the obvious alternative to building a network: buying a network. When Qwest appeared to get into a failed negotiation over selling its long-haul network to Level 3, the talks reportedly broke down over a price gap somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 to $2.5 billion. A back-of-the-napkin calculation at the high end of that range shows that a Google could step into such talks for lunch money. They'd simply have to issue about 4.7 million shares of Google at today's stock price, hardly any dilution for current holders of Google's 317 million shares.

Of course, Google almost certainly realizes that the real key to network entry is the local loop. So it would either have to leverage its investment in the Sprint-backed Clearwire 4G network to complete the connection, or pair a local build and long distance buy.

Regardless, when you keep in mind that Cisco is now a leading PBX supplier, the famous names of the IT industry are buzzing all over telecom. If they have mixed motives, not always sincerely expressed, in doing so, let's face it: That would be entirely consistent with the culture of the telecom industry! Google and some others may not be making an impact yet, but they're certainly welcome to the club, and welcome to keep telling us what they think they have to offer.

The following is a guest post by TC2 Senior Consultant Janis Stephens, whose special expertise includes many of the disciplines surrounding contract compliance and bill auditing.

Everyone assumes that their telecom bills will contain errors. But most enterprises accept their carriers' commitment tracking reports at face value. Why is that?

Commitment tracking reports are spreadsheets or tables designed to show the progress that customers are making toward retiring the dollar commitment that's typically embedded in an enterprise deal. They're often referred to as "MAC tracking reports" because the "Minimum Annual Commitment" is the most common (but not only) type of quid pro quo built into carrier deals.

But these reports are notoriously unreliable. And it's easy to let carriers get away with bad tracking reports, either because they're presented at an extremely high level -- monthly spend grouped into broad categories with no further explanation -- or because they contain excruciating detail that makes it a real chore to pinpoint problems.

Often the basic categories on these reports include such broad strokes as "domestic" and "international" that leave it to the imagination what exactly is being included. And some items may never find their way into the reported revenue, such as data and managed services that were introduced after the the deal was first signed, or international access revenue that your carrier may not think of as its own but is definitely part of your deal.

But the really big challenge in commitment tracking is the complex interplay between billing systems, contracts, service guides, and tracking reports. The last thing you should assume is that your carrier has a clean, "push-button" way to produce an exact revenue match to the services listed as commitment-eligible in your contract.

In some carrier organizations, account teams may be asked to grab bills and reports from different places for MAC-eligible services to produce the tracking report, leaving you at the mercy of essentially manual procedures. In other cases, there may be a conflict in the parties' understanding of the list of MAC-eligible services, especially if the carrier's service guide is more specific than the contract. Example: If your MAC-eligible list doesn't specify advanced features for call centers, and you assume that merely listing the name of your carrier's dedicated inbound call platform covers it, you'll have a problem if the service guide says that features aren't commitment-eligible.

And in some cases, even the MAC-eligible "list" is really an amalgam of several different contract attachments and side letters, practically begging for tracking report problems. Just as billing errors are almost always in the supplier's favor, tracking report errors most typically understate your commitment-eligible spend. But correcting those errors through a tracking-report verification is a broad, all-encompassing process that often requires you to examine the entire chain of procurement and fulfillment to unlock the puzzle.

If a tracking report indicates a potential shortfall, or if it indicates that a customer's spend is close to the commitment, a comprehensive analysis of the tracking report is warranted (which, of course, is something that TC2 can help you with). And if the supplier is providing inaccurate information, it's best to challenge it early rather than wait for the supplier to formally declare the company in shortfall, and then try to dispute a shortfall penalty.

But in almost any situation, customers will gain leverage during their contract term by knowing where their spend really stands vs. their commitment. In the current recession, the big carriers continue to try to box in customers with non-market-based renewal and extension offers and other one-off arrangements. An inaccurate or even uncertain view of how much cushion you have vs. your commitment robs from your ability to present a competitive face to the market and bring out the carriers' more aggressively competitive personality.

And think about it: Even if you do have a substantial cushion, you still aren't likely to use it to move traffic to another carrier, or to generate a better offer short of an optimally timed RFP, unless you know for certain what that action will mean for your remaining flexibility.

Some of these same dynamics are increasingly playing out in wireless deals. Customers often eagerly track their spend, usage or device counts according to how they contribute to the discount tiers that the business is expecting (or, in some cases, that they've effectively promised to individual-liable users). But many enterprises also need to verify the dollar spend or usage that contributes to average monthly spend/usage commitments that competitive flat-rate (but not all-inclusive) voice plans often entail in corporate deals.

Many of these customers are experiencing the same uncertainty over supplier tracking reports that steal their confidence in securing the benefits of existing wireless deals and gaining forward leverage. Unraveling the complexity of the back-office systems that carriers employ to bill and report is a key management task that enterprises are facing across their entire telecom spend. The dedicated effort to solve this challenge will pay dividends in both dollars and confidence.

The following is a guest post by TC2 Senior Consultant Mark Sheard, who is based in London.

Did 2009 mark the end of overcharging for text messaging and data applications while roaming in Europe? You might think so because of last year's European Union roaming caps on texting and data and video applications, as well as an accompanying overall mechanism designed to put a brake on soaring mobile bills.

But that's only part of the story. European and multinational enterprises can only get the full benefit of these measures to solve the chronic problem of runaway mobile charges if they take additional steps. These corporate 'bill shocks' (as the EU put it) might not be as immediately obvious as those, for example, on my teenage daughter's mobile, but close inspection could be more shocking than you thought!

Telecom managers with responsibility for users traveling through Europe should remember the unique aspect of mobile cost management within the EU. The "single market" paradoxically can make it more difficult to keep costs under control. Roaming charges often begin at every national boundary even as users freely move about the continent.

Viviane Reding, the EU Telecoms Commissioner, was addressing this when she described the EU's objective in enacting mobile caps: "What we want to achieve is simple: sending text messages or downloading data via a mobile phone while being in another EU country should not be substantially more expensive than at home. This is the logic of the borderless single market."

Accordingly, since July 1st of 2009, roaming charges for SMS (text messages) have been capped by the EU at a retail cost of €0.11, which compare very favorably with the average cost of a "roamed" text message in the EU between October 2007 and March 2008 of €0.29. The key elements of the regulation are as follows:

-- Limits the price for sending a text message while abroad at €0.11. Receiving an SMS in another EU country remains free of charge.

-- Reduces the cost of surfing the web and downloading movies or video programs with a mobile phone while abroad by introducing a maximum wholesale cap of €1 per megabyte downloaded. This limit will be decreased each year.

-- Further reduces prices for mobile roaming calls with a maximum tariff of €0.43 for making a call and €0.19 for receiving one.

-- Introduces per-second billing after the first 30 seconds for calls made and immediately for calls received.

But these regulations are only a start. Most businesses of scale should be securing competitive rates that are better than the regulated capped rates. If a quick review of your contracts shows that you haven't got better rates, yet you have many roaming users, it is time to plan for a review of your wireless telecoms spend. This should start with an early interview with your incumbent provider's account manager.

In negotiated custom corporate wireless contracts, market leading pricing for roaming usage tracks substantially below the regulated price caps. The significance of the roaming rates cannot be underestimated -- for many MNCs roaming spend can be 50% or more of their mobile costs. Hence, securing competitive rates for voice, data and SMS (texting) is crucial.

Determining whether you have good rates for voice, SMS and data might start with a look at the EU provided information on tariffs. The EU site will give you rates for roaming across Europe. Some might find it a useful starting point to see whether or not their negotiated rates are any better than standard supplier pricing.

Remember that this site is restricted to European countries and published rates. As good as it is to see efforts to provide more open information to consumers, spotting whether you are securing rates commensurate with your corporate spend is not in reality possible from the EU's site. But an interesting exercise is to click on the little timeline down the side of the rate tables and see the differences in prices over time. Immediately, it shows the continued downward trend in charges that telecoms managers should be seeking to emulate for their own contracts.

For one thing, it illustrates that operators really do need some help and encouragement to pass on price reductions to the consumer. Note particularly the drop in voice pricing in 2007 when EU regulation was first brought in! Would these have dropped so significantly without regulation?

For SMS and data, the recent step change down is initially likely to mean some stagnation in the rate of change, but in reality for most MNCs, the recent regulation should have a pull through effect on roaming data pricing. But negotiating improved SMS and data roaming rates in isolation may not be straightforward. Ideally, a structured competitive process will bring the greatest returns in terms of cost reduction, and typically the greatest opportunity for the provider to give you the best deal will be if you widen the scope of the procurement.

Mobile SMS and mobile access to the Internet and corporate networks are growing exponentially, and whilst the EU capping on roaming charges is very good news the caps should be regarded as the starting point for your negotiations, not the end.

For as long as anyone can remember, AT&T has been the carrier that's held on the longest to legacy products. In recent times, AT&T has been happy to let users continue to subscribe to its global business dial-up Internet service until they're ready for AT&T's broadband virtual tunneling service. AT&T has also let corporate WANs sail along on frame relay without putting out a marker on ending frame relay orders or contract renewals, as first Sprint and then Verizon have done.

And there will probably be some companies using AT&T for straight-on, long-haul, T1/T3 private lines in the year 2030 just as in 2010.

So it was jarring when AT&T grabbed some publicity at the end of last year with what looked like a request to the FCC to retire the public switched telephone network. AT&T severing itself from POTS, or Plain Old Telephone Service? It didn't seem right.

Understanding AT&T's about-face on maintaining legacy networks requires an understanding of the concept of financial harvesting. One of the best illustrations of harvesting came during an odd period in telecom carrier finance back in the mid-1990s -- basically a few years before and after enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Back then, the Internet was emerging in its browser-enabled incarnation as the World Wide Web, the corporate telecom deal culture was thriving, and TV airwaves and telemarketing lines were buzzing with pitches for 10-cent, 7-cent, and 5-cent long distance minutes. Yet when AT&T held its quarterly earnings conference calls, the first question Wall Street analysts would invariably ask was why AT&T had only raised its basic, no-plan long distance rate from 25 cents a minute to 26 cents, not 27 cents. Wouldn't Aunt Mary from Kalamazoo, who would never in a million years switch to MCI or Sprint, overlook a larger increase and happily pay the bill?

AT&T was essentially harvesting its no-plan customers for a revenue stream for as long as these customers existed. And the analysts, almost to AT&T's annoyance, wanted them to do even more of it. Not until somebody rang a bell around 1997-1998 and the analysts realized that AT&T had to compete elsewhere for voice and data business did the harvesting issue start to fade.

Now look at AT&T's situation today. AT&T Mobility is thriving and sales of the iPhone are zooming. AT&T's share of the enterprise networking market is basically what it's been for years, and with the decline of Sprint it's even threatening to establish a virtual duopoly with Verizon.

But AT&T's consumer telephony business seems to be slipping away. Like the incumbent local businesses of Verizon and Qwest, AT&T is losing residential landlines at a remarkable pace, now edging close to 1% a month. The result is the reverse of harvesting: AT&T says it's bleeding from the need to maintain all-copper loops in a mass market that's beginning to reject them, and it wants to get out rather than stay in as long as possible.

Of course, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest get some of their landline customers right back when the same households buy their broadband packages. And the broadband and telephony customers that the cable companies win instead represent fair-and-square marketplace losses for the telcos. But that only seems to reinforce the reverse-harvesting instinct, feeding AT&T's argument that it needs to massively shift resources.

Aside from the fact that AT&T in the meantime hasn't lost its near-monopoly dedicated access business in its local territories, here's the problem with simply accepting AT&T's conclusion that the PSTN should be retired: From a business user standpoint, there's a little more to the legacy network than consumer migration to cell phones and broadband. As our friend Eric Krapf of VoiceCon/NoJitter has already pointed out, AT&T hasn't quite defined the PSTN to be retired, leaving us to assume they mean everything. But what about Class 5 switches and their unique functionality that's still in the process of being emulated in various VoIP services? What about the fact that many of the poles, trenches and conduits are the same for both older and newer services?

And what about all the people who make calls to the businesses who make up the enterprise market? If they don't have a cell phone or a broadband triple-play package, are they out of luck, and your business out of a sale?

Many business customers would benefit enormously if AT&T does what it says that PSTN retirement will free it to do: help create universal, affordable broadband. Widespread remote-agent call center functionality, broad-based telecommuting, and many facets of unified communications do rely on a pervasive broadband network.

But it's important to realize that AT&T is responding in a classic "lobbying" fashion to the current broadband stimulus, which requires the FCC to develop a national broadband plan. In effect AT&T is saying that if there has to be universal broadband, there can't be universal narrowband. That's either one of those unintended consequences that can result from regulatory initiatives, or an unproven assertion of investment motivation by an experienced Washington player.

At this point I think there are two key things for corporate telecom professionals to remember. One is that AT&T, with all of its legacy pressures and characteristic behavior patterns, has many piece-parts. In this case we're clearly talking about an AT&T whose heart is the former RBOC SBC, not the former interexchange giant.

The other is that some of the regulatory nuance got lost in some of the initial reports. What AT&T is supporting, in the context of a question posed by the FCC, is the initiation of a Notice of Inquiry about the PSTN, which is a more preliminary proceeding than even a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which itself has many procedural checkpoints before it results in new rules. It's unlikely that AT&T really wants to lose all its POTS customers in one fell swoop right now. More likely, it's just drawing a line in the sand.

So we'll have some time to watch this, and the market will invariably shift more along the way. Let me know if you have thoughts of your own on this fascinating matter that threatens to turn the tables of telecom history upside down.

It's earnings season on Wall Street, and the financial media flash revenues and earnings-per-share numbers on each reporting company. But most of the alerts I get from Wall Street telecom analysts instead highlight the internal figures for each major carrier, especially on the wireless side -- ARPU (average revenue per user per month), and churn (percentage of customers cancelling or leaving during the period).

Now that wireless is considered the main profit generator, the carriers have pretty much gotten the analysts used to rising ARPU and falling churn. The problem is that the drive toward constantly falling churn, while certainly admirable, has potentially negative side-effects.

That's one of the sources of the scare toward the end of last year over Verizon Wireless' hike in consumer early termination fees (ETFs) to as high as $350. In theory, there's nothing wrong with a certain base level of churn if it's caused by something other than dropped calls or bad customer service. Rollouts of new devices and next-generation networks obviously cause customers to look around for new options at a faster rate than before. So naturally, that occasionally leads them to change carriers. But that activity threatens Verizon's industry-leading 1.06% churn and, perhaps goaded by Wall Street, they want to stop it.

In business wireless contracts, Verizon's outsize ETFs don't apply to corporate-liable devices. But many companies rely on an overwhelming number of personal-liable devices to make their negotiated discount tiers with a carrier, in effect leaving their pricing at the mercy of independent users' reactions to carrier marketing.

Other business users are frustrated by lower but still onerous ETFs on a big pool of corporate-liable devices, and find negotiated offsets to be insufficient. One classic headache: "Pro-rated" ETFs that aren't truly pro rata -- say, a $5-per-month reduction in a $175 ETF on a 24-month contract (it would take 35 months to make such a concession a straight-line proration).

Effective ETF management reminds me of the problem of rate reviews in wireline contracts. While some carriers are trying to cut out rate reviews, some customers are trying out better alternatives such as term rather than annual commitments. Similarly, while a complete waiver of all ETFs was sometimes available to very large customers and is now more difficult to achieve, many companies are turning to waiver pools to get the right to end a set percentage of their corporate-liable lines every year without charge.

Still other companies with high turnover in certain business units implement policies that require re-use of individual lines, often combined with "suspend" or "seasonal" plans for the period between two employees' use of the line.

There's a real continuum of techniques here. That's why I like an 18-minute podcast that's available free in the "Telecom Junkies" series run by the folks at The Voice Report, because it describes a whole gamut of these tools.

The podcast, recorded in November and called "Savings Tips in Wake of VZW Termination Fee Hike," features among others LB3 partner Kevin DiLallo. Kevin is an occasional contributor on this blog, including recent notes about the IRS rules on personal cell phone usage and the text-message donation dilemma for corporate-billed devices. Kevin's advice is always practical and tuned to the needs of business users in particular situations. I encourage you to check out the podcast.