


Vonage IPO 153
mesowarny writes "The street writes: Vonage Holdings, moved to become the first major Internet telephony player to go public by filing Wednesday to raise up to $250 million via an initial offering of stock and named a Tyco International executive as CEO. Our revenues were $18.7million in 2003, $79.7million in 2004, and $174.0 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005," the company's prospectus says."While our revenues have grown rapidly, we have experienced increasing net losses, primarily driven by our increase in marketing expenses. From the period of inception through Sept.30, 2005, our cumulative net loss was $310 million. Our net loss for the nine months ended Sept.30, 2005, was $189.6million. During the same nine-month period, our marketing expenses were $176.3million."
Business voip? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, I'm really impressed by their success so far. Many of my non-geek friends and family are starting to use Vonage - it beats the heck out of SBC.
Something that frustrates me, though, is the apparent lack of VOIP for small businesses. I have a small company where my partner and I work from our home offices and on the road, about an hour away from each other. Every call is long distance. We're paying through the nose for our cell phones, which barely work in our houses anyway. Looking around, I've only found a handful of VOIP companies that are affordable, and most of them don't seem to be very helpful for my situation. We were talking about how cool it would be to set up an Asterisk box so we could have the voicemail, forwarding, etc. It's just not something I have time for.
The Vonage business service doesn't seem like much more than a residential+fax line. Another place I saw sent you a box you had to set up but it was pricy. It's like there's no in-between.
Anyone have a suggestion?
Re:Business voip? (Score:4, Interesting)
/end plug
Re:Business voip? (Score:2)
I must say, I'm already impressed that you guys have pricing on your website. The other places I've found usually make me call to get info like that.
Re:Business voip? (Score:2)
Re:Business voip? (Score:1, Informative)
I'm a VAR who has been activly looking for a company like yours for months. I've done business with one of your largest competitors and hate them. The product is incredible, first class all the way. But the support is horiffic. They will downright lie to you about things.
I have 4 clients with 25, 15, 10 and 20 extensions some with multiple locations. All of them will switch tomorrow if I can find a better provider.
I won't be calling y
Re:Business voip? (Score:1)
Re:Business voip? (Score:2)
We tried VOIP for about a year for our small business, and went back to POTS for day-to-day calls. We couldn't get the call quality we wanted for business class calls when operating over DSL.
We were talking about how cool it would be to set up an Asterisk box so we could have the voicemail, forwarding, etc. It's just not something I have time for.
We just set up an Asterisk box with BroadVoice for an independent pr
Re:Business voip? (Score:1)
Re:Business voip? (Score:1)
A loose definition I guess.
180 million in losses, 170 million in advertising.
Before the dot com era this company would be looking at shareholder lawsuits.
Today they'll probably generate enough cash to run the business with losses for another 5 years. Then the lawsuits.
Re:Business voip? (Score:2)
Re:Business voip? (Score:2)
This seems like a bit of a contradiction. If you're happy with the long run costs (unwilling to make a short-term time investment), why complain?
Re:Business voip? (Score:1)
Re:Business voip? (Score:1)
We use it with Asterisk, running two home offices using POTS and Broadvoice VOIP.
Re:Business voip? (Score:1)
Only obstacle is network latency. If your internet is shaky, your phone calls will suck.
Feel free to reply for more info - I can point you in the right direction. You said you don't have time for it. I setup a new installation of asterisk@home today, and it took about 35 minutes from st
Re:Business voip? (Score:2)
Re:Business voip? (Score:2)
The whole thing stinks of amateurishness, and that's something we (as a small business) are trying to avoid.
this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again... (Score:2)
Then again, considering the current customer backlash (including potential legal action) against ISPs that interfere with the traffic from particular applications - including ESPECIALLY relatively low-volume streams like those involved in VoIP, this could as easily go the other way.
Interesting times.
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:2)
Vonage's target market is home users with high speed connectivity. The vast majority of home users with high speed connectivity use either cable or DSL, with a small but increasing number using services like Verizon's FIOS. [verizon.com]
Now, anyone who's got DSL doesn't need Vonage for their primary phone service. True, there's a market for second lines, but the big money is in homes with one phone line.
This leaves cable users. I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in NYC, Time Warn [twcdigitalphone.com]
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:1)
(And unfortunately I need a Verizon phone line for a security system even without DSL. I don't trust VoIP in case of an emergency.)
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:2)
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:1)
Speakeasy's OneLink [speakeasy.net] offers DSL without a phone line (I have it) and I'm sure there are others.
I was personally thrilled to do away with Verizon and get Vonage. I guess there is some level of comfort in doing business with the "big guy", but that comfort zone will change over time.
The thing is that technology is supposed t
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:2)
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:2)
VoIP providers took advantage of all the excess switching capacity in the U.S. When the Telecom Act of 1996 was enacted, comanies were tripping over themselves building new switching centers. Lucent and Nortel were living high on the hog for about 5 years. And then the bottom dropped out.
With so many choices for local/ld carriers business now spread out to a dozen or more vendors. It lessened the d
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:1)
Dont just sit by .... (Score:2)
Do something about it lobby your congress man/woman to keep local phone lines open to secondary carriers. I utalize xo, at work, and vonage at home. Trust me a few times a year and my boss make it a point to lobby our congress person regarding the benifits of equal oppertunity access to baby bells networks.
Re:this could be a dangerous IPO (Score:1, Interesting)
As Heinlein said via Manuel, "TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." The problem from my point of view is that the backbone providers, and the wired telcom infrastructure companies, are under the impression they should be paid twice. O
Increasing net losses??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Jerry
http://www.networkstrike.com/ [networkstrike.com]
Re:Increasing net losses??? (Score:2)
Some investment bank(s) will underwrite the whole deal, guaranteeing that Vonage will raise funds. The investment bank will assume all of the risk of selling the issue, but given how irrational market participants can be, I assume that the underwriters will also make out with a good profit*.
The only people for whom this will not go well are the people who actually buy the shares at the en
Re:Increasing net losses??? (Score:2)
enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that is a clue. I swear there is a vonage commercial on every commercial break of any show I ever watch on cable.
That song from Kill Bill makes me cringe now when I hear it.
Re:enough already (Score:2)
Now I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Same old story (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I've seen this movie...I remember how it ends.
Re:Same old story (Score:2)
Re:Same old story (Score:2)
Clearly, their marketing has been a huge expense, but it seems clear it has increased their exposure (whether you love it or hate it, everyone knows the woo-hoo song). I'd say it very likely is responsible for a large part of their revenue growth.
Now, if you cut off that marketing, they are almost break even. I'm sure they've had huge expenses to add the capacity to handle all those new users, as well as things like rolling out better 911 services every
Re:Same old story (Score:2)
marketing expenses a little excessive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow. Their marketing expenses totaled 93% of their net loss. I wonder how what their revenue and net loss would have been without all that marketing expense?.
Sounds like they aren't going to be able to maintain the all-you-can-use service for only $25 much longer.
Re:marketing expenses a little excessive? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you're missing the point. Marketing for a small and / or growing business is always the biggest expense. You have to get your name out there, get noticed, get people calling you. Marketing, if its done halfway right, is an investment, not an expense. The only conern I would have about Vonage is if they have foolishly invested in branding before they are a brand name (Coca Cola et al.).
And they've dropped prices twice since I signed up (Score:3, Informative)
They're considerably cheaper than the local cable company, Time Warner. I guess TW has two advantages -- bundling for price, and for making it a check-off. Personally, though, I move every year or two, and I prefer keeping it simple with a carrier-independent service.
I'd certainly not have had a problem with them keeping it at $29.95... I wonder how much that 16% drop in revenue per custo
Re:And they've dropped prices twice since I signed (Score:2)
I just established new service a couple weeks ago. There is NO price break for getting their "all in one" package as opposed to getting RoadRunner, digital cable and VoIP separately (I asked about this exact point). RoadRunner is still $29.95/month for the first year (promotion). Digital cable is still $55.82/month. VoIP is still $39.95. You just get one bill instead of three.
But TW's marketing sure makes you think you get a break. "I saved $30/month on my phone bill!" -
Re:marketing expenses a little excessive? (Score:1)
Re:marketing expenses a little excessive? (Score:2)
that's a steep investment (Score:1)
Sounds like they aren't going to be able to maintain the all-you-can-use service for only $25 much longer.
Yeah, that's a lot of money for marketing. But, I think they're probably explaining it to investors that it's an initial hump that's already been jumped. Now that they've established themselves as the most known VOIP company, they can coast and retain the marketshare they have and harvest those $25-a-month subscriptions for several years. This is all a guess on my part, though.
Seth
Re:that's a steep investment (Score:2)
Re:marketing expenses a little excessive? (Score:2)
Should be Vonage "VOIPO" (Score:5, Funny)
Customers might get shares too (Score:1, Interesting)
Where is the quoted prospectus? (Score:1)
Re:Where is the quoted prospectus? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1272830/00
Broadvoice? (Score:1)
Re:Broadvoice? (Score:2)
Like we need another IPO at this time... (Score:1)
There IS such a thing as Too Much of a Good Thing[tm].
On a side note, I'm glad I ditched Vonage. I'm now using Gizmo and saving money in the process (even with a dial-in number).
Marketing expenses taken in perspective: (Score:5, Insightful)
Vonage can cut way back on them without losing existing customers. They are not unavoidable operating expenses.
If a company intends to be as large as the incumbents, they'll need equivalent marketing - regardless of their current number of customers.
Vonage could "grow" its revenue so that its relatively fixed high-profile national marketing expense becomes a much smaller fraction of its expenses without reducing its actual marketing expenses a dime. Remember that the amortized cost for the first customer of a startup company that spent $100 million developing its products is $100 million per customer. If the customer growth is exponential while the marketing expenses are linear, the amortized cost declines rapidly with time.
The more important numbers to worry about are the operating costs per customer, not necessarily the acquisition cost for the earliest customers, which can be misleading.
There ought to be a law (Score:1)
Re:There ought to be a law (Score:1)
Packet8...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically first VOIP IPO, Packet8 is pre VOIP (Score:2)
Re:Packet8...? (Score:2)
What do you call Vonage three way calling? (Score:3, Funny)
Don't like the idea, investment wise (Score:5, Insightful)
Short term they are bleeding rectally trying to grow marketshare above all other considerations while the telcos are trying to stamp them out of existance and national governments worldwide want to outlaw VoIP as undesirable competition to the local monopolies and the huge tariff structures they currently reap buttloads of juicy tax money from foreigners off of.
Longterm, assuming VoIP in general and any one particular VoIP company survives the shortterm, they face the problem of becoming unneeded. Everyone seems to be missing the big picture here, a VoIP provider gives you two things.
1. Point of presence, i.e. a phone number. Google Chat (i.e. Jabber) can do that part equally well and for zero dollars. Plus as IP6 begins to roll out and dynamic IP & NAT goes away we return to the original Internet where every host has an address, read that as a telephone number/hostname.
2. An interface to the legacy telco network. If VoIP becomes universal that service becomes far less valuable.
So longterm the value add a company like Vonage provides drops drastically and thus their net per customer will be on a similar decline to the current fade to zero valuation currently on the accounting books for the existing long distance businesses.
Re:Don't like the idea, investment wise (Score:1, Insightful)
Fortunately, Vonage also has a bunch of employees, and (hopefully) are working on other projects.
Joel Spolsky [joelonsoftware.com] says "the goal is not to solve some specific problem, but to be able to convert money to code through programmers". Paul Graham [paulgraham.com] says "What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people." One of the Zop [zope.org]
Re:Don't like the idea, investment wise (Score:1)
Google Talk (Score:1)
Re:Google Talk (Score:1)
Marketing expenses high (Score:1)
Power outage? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Power outage? (Score:2)
UPS / Cell phone (Score:3)
I'd be willing to bet there are many, many people on POTS lines with only cordless phones of the type that require power ( some have battery backup ). All those people are screwed if the power goes out.
Given how many people have cell phones, I'd be most times power goes out people will reach for the cell without giving it a second thought. And with customers using VOIP and broadband I'd guess th
Re:Power outage? (Score:2)
I happen to use VoIP with my cable company (phone, tv and inet) and the modem has a backup battery in it thats good for 8 hours. (as in not talking for all that time of course) My phone is normally a 5.4Ghz type, with two handsets. If power would go out, my phone wouldn't work because they need power, but thats why I also happen to have a $6.00 cheap phone just in case. Like another user posted, a UPS would be more optimal.
Re:Power outage? (Score:2)
Of course, the other alternative is a UPS... one that provides power for my DSL modem, router, VoIP box and wireless base station. However, I've also got a cell phone for that... and so does my SO.
Re:Power outage? (Score:2)
Vonage is in a dead-end business. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there are the up-and-comers, like Skype. That's the future of VoIP. Skype is already a better deal than Vonage, and without one-year lock-in contracts. Skype's costs are likely lower too.
That's why I figured Vonage's strategy is to go IPO, or sell the company. Vonage has been sitting still. They have not been adding any new features to their service--such as a simple, "do-not-disturb" feature that AT&T has. Come on, it's an electronic network! The cost of adding new features must be minimal.
Plus, the quality of Vonage's service is absolutely abysmal. If Vonage works, great. If it doesn't work, good luck--they will screw you. I have personal experience here. No wonder they've registered vonagesucks.com [vonagesucks.com].
I now pay over $40 a month for a Verizon landline, rather than a Vonage phone, and I'd much rather give my money to Verizon. However there are probably investors dumb enough to buy Vonage IPO stock.
Re:Vonage is in a dead-end business. (Score:2)
Skype and Vonage are not competitors. They have products that serve different needs. For example, Skype's own web site says:
"Skype is not a telephony replacement service and cannot be used for emergency dialing."
Not so with Vonage. This is a pretty big deal. Furthermore, Skype doesn't allow me to buy an off the shelf VOIP router, plug it into my hub and a phone jack and serve a dial ton
Troll? (was Re:Vonage is in a dead-end business. (Score:2)
Where do you get this? I have been a customer with Vonage for a long time (July 2004) and have never had to sign a one-year contract.
We HAD to run all those ads! (Score:2)
Don't you love how they phrased that like it's an expendeture they have no control over? I mean, hello? You look at you checkbook balance and realize you're getting towards 0 you STOP SPENDING MONEY.
Business Option for VOIP (Score:1)
Test your connection first... (Score:5, Informative)
My Dad and a couple of co-workers have Vonage and they all love it. Unfortunately my DSL is pretty much at the limit of the distance from the local telephone CO so my line is not up as much as I want my phone to be... ah well.
-ben
Skype and Google Talk are not the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a VOIP company, and I would say that the biggest threat is the big Telecoms that can squash VOIP either by messing with the packets that travel over their wires to destroy QoS, or by pushing the goverment to regulate VOIP out of business. Actually, this is one reason why the company I work for is glad that a big company like Vonage is around to look out for the interests of VOIP companies.
Vonage is bleeding money in marketing and practically giving away their service (including the VOIP devices that they give to their customers -- which I guarantee is not cheap), and it's questionable whether they'll ever be profitable, even if they tailor back their marketing efforts.
I would stay away from Vonage as an investment opportunity, for no other reason than VOIP is fighting an uphill battle against the telecoms. Even if VOIP can survive the war with the major telecoms, there are a lot of companies trying to break into this market, and Vonage may find themselves paving the way for another company to claim dominance over the VOIP world, especially if they can't find a way to make themselves profitable soon.
Re:Skype and Google Talk are not the issue (Score:1)
I had Vonage and dumped it after they ignored my pleas for bandwidth-related tech support. I've since gone to a local VoIP provider like yours that provides serious support, and haven't looked back.
All the Skype-sayers do indeed miss the point. VoIP in the home is all about "the number" - the 10 digits that ring the house as well as provide a "point of entry" into my personal communications space from the standard PSTN. With Asterisk and its ilk, VoIP provides
Re:Skype and Google Talk are not the issue (Score:1)
Some hardware is going to be coming out in a few months, but I've wondered whether this will have an effect on VoIP. Today Skype can't compete at the same level that Vonage can because of the level of service and reliability that true VoIP providers have, but I'm wondering if it would be possible for that to change? What would Skype need to do to be able to
Re:Skype and Google Talk are not the issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Skype and Google Talk are not the issue (Score:2)
Fair enough. I will continue to scream "Skype," because Skype has SkypeIn [skype.com]. It's a phone number, for the cheap rate of $35 a year. Better deal than Vonage, without crappy Vonage support. Further, Skype now has POTS-like telephone handsets. In a year or two this will kill Vonage.
Competition from the Bells? (Score:3, Informative)
I am not sure I would invest in them just yet.
VOIP is not a business (Score:1)
Vonage already can't afford the marketing expenses required to recruit and retain customers, and that problem is only going to get worse.
what to do with the money. (Score:2)
Net Losses (Score:1)
When marketing expenses are 50% of all your expenditure and you have been in business for some 5 odd years only, there is a big problem. You may bring in more subscribers now but if you do not invest in enriching their experience, they will flitter away very quickly.
Next Year's marketing budget (Score:1)
Vonage not the only one to file for an IPO (Score:1)
Telio isn't making a loss [huginonline.com] either.
(Revenues around $6.4M, operating profit before extraordinary expenses around $700k)
Caveat emptor: I work for Telio. My views are biased.
The problem is not the technology.... (Score:2)
Vonage = international long distance savings (Score:2)
Too Many Trolls (Score:2, Informative)
1. Vonage does not require contracts. I have had Vonage for well over a year now, and I have referred people to Vonage with in the past month. No one I know who has Vonage has even heard of a service contract.
2. Myth: Vonage has lost of dropped calls or calls that do not connect. This is false. If you do experience these problems, then it is likly cause by
Many love it, but the complaints are real (Score:2)
See their Terms of Service [vonage.com]. See Section 2.1 for their termination fee. There's an implicit 12-month contract.
No, not false. Many subscribers have no problems at all, but many do -- so commonly that one has to question the maturity of the technology. Vonage s
Re:Indeed (Score:1)
Re:tyco (Score:1)
Yup. Why would they hire someone with such baggage? It's kinda like Apple hiring a CEO from Commodore ...
Re:tyco (Score:4, Informative)
In my opinion this is a questionable business decision at best. Vonage has all the earmarks of a mid 90's "bubble" company with a shaky at best business plan. Now, they go public on unstable ground and hire a person from Tyco as CEO. While he may not have contributed to the scandal at Tyco, anything associated with Tyco has, deserved or not, a bad reputation associated with it. This wouldn't be my first choice as hire if I was trying to convince potential stockholders to invest.
Re:lost me on the pronunciation (Score:2, Funny)
After an untold amount of time, I awakened, the world slowly returning to me after the mysterious blast of amperage. Directly above me, the visage of an anxio
promise her anything but give her... (Score:2)
VONE-idge? Sounds like BONE-idge, a term I've heard my 17 year old kid use
Keep reading (Score:2)