telecommunications industry brief
Post on 22-Jan-2016
41 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Telecommunications Industry Brief
Strategic Challenge
How to keep up with the pace of change?
High uncertainty about future
No time to make decisions
Difficult to catch-up as pace increases
Tough competition penalizes mistakes
Planning is limited
Reacting is insufficient
Traditional strategies of “build and defend a position” are inadequate
Fortresses No Longer Exist
Intel could try to defend its fortress…
• Superior technical capabilities
• Substantial capital barriers to entry
• Dominant market share
• “Only the paranoid survive”• Advantage is assumed temporary
• Strategy is complicated and surprising• Price cutting in NICs• Innovation into MMX technology• $500 million investment in over 50 media,
Internet and graphics companies• Downmarket microprocessors for under
$1,000 PCs• Expanded product line• Laptop-specific microprocessor• New, “cheap” chips• New “express bus” chips
…but chooses not to
Time Pacing
Common experience
*FootnoteSource: Sources
Myths Best practice
• Need for change is not anticipated
• Initiating change takes too long
• Change frequently loses momentum
• Best solution is to react to events as quickly as possible (event triggered)
• Drive change with internal metronome (clock driven change)
• Monitor own processes and the market for rhythms
• Set the pace • Choreograph transitions
Time Pacing Examples
Company Activity Pacing
Addition of new manufacturing capacity
Builds new facility every 9 months
Opening of new retail outlet
Opens 300 stores each year to hit target of 2,000 by year 2000
Launch of new products 40% of sales from products launched in last 5 years (in 1997 achieved 49%)
Jack Welch’s calendar Like seasons of the year, Welch manages through a rhythm of regular, seasonal activities
Common experience Myths Best practice
• Innovative ideas suffer from poor execution
• Company aspires to lead, but always seems to follow industry
• “Analysis-paralysis”
• Successful companies are run by a braintrust of a few, smart senior executives
• Success is driven by an army of revolutionaries
• Successful companies• Operate on the fly• Limit information• Eliminate conflict
• A few rules, neither bureaucracy nor chaos
• Structure key outcomes with responsibilities
• Structure key activities with priorities
• Success is driven by more information (real time), not less and fact-based debate
Improvisation
Improvisation – Semi-Structure ExamplesCompany Limited set of rules
• Strict product development priorities• Products released in three stages – internal, beta, full
launch• Priorities managed, not projects – spontaneous content
encouraged• “We live on the edge”
• Clear ranking of which types of molecules are research priorities
• Maximum number of molecule types pursued at any one time
• Projects “killed” according to step charts
• Movies must• Center on a basic human condition and a flawed, but
sympathetic character• Have a clear beginning, middle, and end• Disciplined financing (50% more efficient than
industry standard)
F I L M S
(The Crying Game Pulp FictionThe English PatientChasing AmyCinema Paradiso)
• Annual strategic plans are created, then filed and ignored
• Strategic plans are often wrong in hindsight
• Short-term performance pressure takes priority over future thinking
Myths Best practice
• Planning predicts the future
• Planning is a waste of time, it is better just to react
• Build vision of business, not industry
• Probe the future• Wide variety (time and content)
of low-cost probes to create insight
• Constant, thin attention• Hypotheses and evaluation
metrics tied to probes
• 5-week schedule, 5-month plan, 15-month intuition
Probing
Common experience
Probing ExamplesCompany Examples
• “You’ve got to experiment…strategy is about buying options…then picking the best ones to pursue” – John Browne, CEO
• Drilling experiments on Andrew oil field led to revolutionary horizontal drilling technique
• Used limited JV with Safeway to experiment with integrated food and fuel convenience stores
• Gates calls probes “feelers”• “You’ve got to make sure you have feelers out to see when things are about
to achieve critical mass”• Currently limited backing of three different video compression technologies• Creates probes with internal projects, alliances, and acquisitions • Both shorter term probes and “Blue Sky” projects
• Schwab’s approach is to use market to fine-tune new products; as a result, they “release products at a blistering rate, some hit and some wither, but the flood keeps coming” – Forbes
• Develop experimental products/services in-house• Futures trading• Market Buzz• AdvisorSource• Uses alliances for further experiments• IPOs with Goldman Sachs• Direct life insurance with Great West Life
Making Probing HappenFuture focused meetings
Futurists
Pilot markets Experimental products and services
Alliances/ JVs
Scenario planning
Acquisitions
Market research
5 years
3 years
2 years
18 months
6 months
• Design a probe portfolio• Range of time frames• Range of technologies• Range of probe types• Always low cost• More random probes when
more uncertainty• Measure results• At some point, accelerate
investment in direction of probe or eliminate it
Regeneration
Common experience Myths Best practice
• New business opportunities suffocate in shadow of legacy ones
• New businesses thrive while traditional businesses languish
• Roadblocks on previously successful growth paths
• New businesses succeed only when isolated from traditional ones
• Diversification is successful when managers build and extend a tightly woven set of competencies
• Drive successful diversified growth when
• Traditional businesses are combined with new approaches
• Multiple growth paths are traveled
• 3 Rs: rearchitecture, recombination, and refresh are used
• Thinking is modular• Existing businesses are culled
Regeneration ExamplesCompany Examples
• Diversified into high-volume, low-cost, in-store banking outlets with supermarket-style service sales force
• Newly trained salesforce used to re-vitalize traditional branch network
• Entry into luxury market with Lexus, built on• Discarded, experimental, midsize, Asian market product platform• New dealerships, brand images, styling, technology• Rearchitected selected engineering features• Refreshed lower priced name plates with Lexus technology
• Recognized modularity of brewery, wholesale business, and retailing/hospitality skills
• Diversified into resort hotels, restaurants, nursing homes, and health clubs based on retailing/hospitality skills
• Divested smaller, less profitable brewery operations
• Sophisticated combination of varied mutations, recombinations, and refreshers• Combined camera skills (optics technology, management of dealers, high-volume
assembly) and new copier product • Combined print engines from copiers with new laser printers product and OEM
channel into print engine business• Refreshed copier business with sophisticated control technology from laser printers• Recombined dealer management, high-volume assembly, copier and laser printer
technology to launch fax machines business
Agenda
Local Services and Strategies
Long Distance Service and Strategies
Integrated Carrier Strategies
Voice over Whatever
Local Market Dynamics
Large, slow growth market
Competition really just beginning
Lots of M&A activity
SBC/Pac Bell/ SNET/ Ameritech
Bell Atlantic/ NYNEX/ GTE
WorldCom/MFS/Brooks
AT&T/ TCG/ TCI
Revenues for ILECs only, excludes non-telecom revenues
ILEC Local Market Revenues$98.6 Billion, 1997
Local Services
51.9%
Access33.6%
Toll10.2%
Dir Revenue4.3%
Residential - 54%Business - 42%
ILEC Local Services Market$51.1 Billion, 1997
Local P/L3.3%
Termination/connections
13.3%
Dial tone70.1%
Pay phone3.9%other
0.2%
Features9.2%
What Defines the CLECs?
The Telecom Act of 1996 transformed CAPs into CLECs and created the rise of an integrated carrier approach. It also sparked the entrance of other “new” competitive local exchange carriers- both start-ups and existing carriers.
CLECs are among the fastest growing , and are clearly the first wave of Integrated Carriers because they were able to leverage existing infrastructure to offer a broader portfolio of services.
CLECs are diverse; different target markets, service mixes and technology solutions.
Competition is driving carriers to unprecedented levels of business, service and infrastructure complexity
LD/Toll15%
Data5%
Local Exchange
22%
Switched access
7%
Systems Integration
13%
Special & P/L38%
Domestic Revenues Only
1997- $3.1B
Data6%
Switched access
11%
LD/Toll23%
Systems Integration
7% Special & P/L24%
Local Exchange
29%
2000- $9B
CLEC Revenue Mix1997 & 2000
CLEC Profiles
Intermediate • East Coast emphasis with extended Frame Relay to the West Coast and Texas
• Nationwide Frame Relay servicethrough the UNISPAN consortium
• The target market for Intermedia isbusinesses with between 50 and 500lines that can ultimately be servedon-net.
• Also targeting larger accounts with its inter-city data services andinternet services
• 365 Intermedia sales peopleand a total of 617 salespeople when Shared Tech.,LDS, and national Tel areadded
• 102 Sales Offices located throughout the US
ICG • Regional carrier• Focuses on clusters in Ohio
Valley, Texas SouthernCalifornia; Colorado;North Carolina; Alabama;and Tennessee.
• New network in Atlanta for 1998 and no additionalnetworks planned
• Primarily focuses on Tier Iand Tier II.
• Sells to small and medium-sizedbusinesses of 5 to 100 lines with astrong emphasis on accounts with15 to 50 lines.
• Utility agreements will bring onMultiple-dwelling units as a target market
• ICG is trying to leverage its existing client relationships to sell bundledsolutions.
• Sales force is estimated at roughly 300+.
• Also leverages itsrelationship with utilities toexpand into residential andbusiness markets.
TCG • Nationwide footprint covering 28 of the 30 largest MSAs.
• BizTel footprint-206 areasincluding 96 of the top 100 MSAs.
• Focus on Tier I cities someemphasis on Tier II andTier III cities.
• New emphasis on regional corridors.
• Target larger businesses (550 linesor more) in certain verticals such asFinancial Services, Healthcare,Education, Gov’t and Mediacompanies.
• Other Key market is on-netsmall/medium businesses (500 linesor less.)
• Very limited residential play.
• Sales channels include bothdirect sales force (689+ salesrepresentatives) and agentsand resellers (approx. 2000.)
Geographic service area Key Customer Focus Sales Organization
CLEC Profiles
GST • Regional player-mostly West andSouthwest U.S. and Hawaii.
• Not looking to go national.• Mostly Tier II and Tier III cities.
• Target SMBs business-between2 to 200 access lines.
• Continue to serve wholesale and retail businesses.
• Sales force approx. 290• Focus on customer care and
“holding-the-hand” of the customer.
E-spire • Southeast and Southwest U.S.• Tier II and III cities.• Accelerating roll out in 98.
• Targeting small to mediumbusinesses spending.
• Targets firms in professional services,health care, gov’t, and financialservices.
• No interest in residential.
• Sales and Marketing staff grewfrom 56 people in 1996 to 277 people in 1997.
USN • Regional focus - Midwest, New England, and Mid Atlantic.
• All TRS based.
• Target businesses with 2-10 businesslines.
• Focus on providing full bundles andsuperior customer service.
• Direct Sales focus.• Sales force grew from 206
in 1996 to 426 in 1997.
Geographic service area Key Customer Focus Sales Organization
Key Market Trends and Influences Affecting the CLEC Market
Wall Street
Deregulation
Mergers and Acquisitions
Alliances and Partnerships
Integrating the product portfolio
Network Build-out
Growth- Can they sustain their current growth and will they be able to manage and survive their growth
Wall Street and Deregulation
Wall Street
Pressure to show profit- EBIDTA positive
None of the CLECs EBIDTA positive except for TCG
Wall Street looking for a return on investments
Push towards deployment of success-based capital
Deregulation
Telecom Reform Act of 1996
Required the RBOCs to open the local markets via resale, UNE and facilities based
Competition in the business market. Cherry-picking the profitable customers. Residential markets have seen very little to any competition.
Deregulation (Continued) 8th Circuit court interconnection rulings
Removed the ILECs burden of recombining UNEs and placed that burden on the competing carrier. Ruling now under consideration by the Supreme Court.
Interconnection pricing in the hands of the state regulatory commissions. Leaves competition fragmented and makes a national TSR or UNE local entry strategy difficult.
RBOCs into Long Distance
RBOCs need to meet 14 point checklist to gain entry into in-region Long Distance,
FCC vs. SBC granted RBOCs the ability to immediately enter in-region. Overturned on appeal.
RBOCS plannin ressive attack of the in-region long distance market. Expecting to take most market share in the small and medium business market and the consumer market.
Mergers / Acquisitions and Alliances / Partnerships
CLECs are positioning themselves both to be acquired or to acquire. Are the CLECs looking for an exit strategy?
Acquisitions, alliances, and partnerships have allowed for quick, lower-cost entry into new markets
Large IXCs continue to look to the “CAPs turned CLECs” as an access alternative to the ILECs
Internet’s demand for dedicated access, the call for alternatives to the PSTN, and the lure of the ISP retail business have driven many CLECs to acquire ISPs
ICG/Netcom, Intermedia/Digex, MFS/UUNET, TCG/Cerfnet, RCN/ UltraNEt and Erols
Challenge is integrating acquisitions. Importance of a seamless entity to customers
Network Build-out: Expansion Today; Growth Tomorrow
Still in the Build Out Stage for Most CLECs;
Many Are Expanding Into New Cities, Others Are Consolidating their existing networks to Ensure Seamless Regional corridors
Third Tier Cities Now the Focus of New CLEC Opportunities (i.e., Cities With 750,000 Population or Less); Tier 1 and many Tier 2 cities saturated
Move into Switched Services & Long Distance helping to achieve profitability and positive cash flow while traditional CAP segment faces threat from IXC acquisitions
Network Build-out: Expansion Today; Growth Tomorrow (Continued)
Yankee Group Forecasts More MFS-Style Exit Strategies for facilities-based CLECs. Network build-out is expensive and it is less expensive to buy the networks
Move towards 3rd generation CLECs- dropping in switches and leasing the fiber between the switches. Allows for a faster turn-up time and generation of positive cash flow. CLECs to look for in this category include: US LEC; Allegiance; and Focal
Network Expansion: Growing CLEC Switch Deployment
100
210
320
410
520600
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Nu
mb
er o
f S
wit
ches
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Installed Base,Switches
Can the CLECs Survive Growth?
Managing Growth
Customer Growth- can they meet customer expectations and demand
Market Growth- Are they going too fast too quickly? Do they have the resources to maintain their current pace or are they trying to be everything to everyone? Example being US ONE which crashed and burned
Ensuring Quality while Maintaining Growth
Leased Networks
Manage unbundled elements- need to own the customer end-to-end and control the customer’s entire experience
Talent: Finite number of talented people in the industry
CLEC revenues EXCLUDES MFS & MCImetro (MFS and MCImetro included in IXCs); revenues for dial tone ONLY,EULC, taxes, and toll are not included
Local Exchange Market - 2000$44 billion
CLECs3.6%
IXCs7.4%
ILECs88.9%
CLEC Market Dynamics 36 to 48 Months
Multiple facilities-based CLECs in major Tier 1 and 2 cities
Tier 3 cities offer some growth opportunity
UNEs widely available
RBOCs have gained In-region LD relief
Technology increases bandwidth
Potential for oversupply of inventory
Bandwidth & Exchange prices fall
CLECs Employing Exit Strategies
Increased IXC / ILEC Partnerships
Long Distance Market
Business= 54%Residential= 46%
1997 Long Distance: The $86.7 Billion Market
Residential
46%
Data
4%
Other
1%
Carrier Services
5%
Wholesale
6%
VPN
4%
Private Line
10%
Outbound
9%
Inbound
15%
Grew approx. 10.9% from 1996
1997 Business Long Distance: $46.7 billion
Inbound
29%
Other
2%
Data
8%
Carrier
Services
9%
Wholesale
11%
VPN
7%
Private Line
18%
Outbound
16%
11.9
7.2 7.4
3.5
4.8
2.95
13.3
7.58.6
3.5
5.1
3.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Inbound Outbound Private Line VPN Wholesale Data
$ in bn
1996 1997
Key Segment Growth (1996-97)
AT&T51.3%
MCI23.2%
Sprint11.4%
WorldCom10.2%
Others3.9%
The Big 2 = ~85%
Business Long-Distance Market Shares (1996)
AT&T: Consolidations and Acquisitions, in defense of the core business
Divesting non- core assets and businesses
AT&T Universal Card to Citibank
AT&T Solutions customer care to Cincinnati Bell
Termination of Direct TV marketing agreement
Acquires TCG and Defines Local Business Entry Strategy
Paid $ 11.3 billion in stock
Time to market a key factor in influencing the acquisition decision
AT&T gains Cost efficiencies, Local network coverage, and Local market experience
TCG gains scale, access to the AT&T brand, and easier access to capital and other resources
Sprint: Looking for Partners?
With MCIWorldCom merger, Sprint falls further behind
Existing Local properties not all that attractive
However, with its LD brand, Wireless assets, and local presence, it is well positioned to partner or merge with: LECs with national ambitions Foreign PTTs that are seeking a US presence
WorldCom acquires MCI to become the leading integrated carrier
MCI spurns GTE and leaves BT standing at the altar
Overnight, MCIWorldCom becomes: the second largest LD carrier with 25% share the largest CLEC, with 56% share the leading global ISP Fourth largest international telco
WorldCom and MCI– A comparison
Long Distance • $7 Billion Annual revenue (1997)• former Wiltel wholesale LD
• $16.5 billion annual revenue (1996)• $7.06 billion in consumer revenue• 9.4 million households
Local • Estimated 1996 CLEC revenues of $1.9 bn• 52 MFS Metros• 34 Brooks Metros• 23 markets under development• 7500 on-net buildings (est)• 75 Class 5 switches• 25% of all competitive access lines
• CLEC (Metro) Revenue of $450 million• Presence in 36 cities• Local switched service in 32 cities• 30 Class 5 switches
Assets WorldCom MCI
WorldCom and MCI– A Comparison
Internet • UUNet, largest global ISP• 50,000 business customers (access and
hosting)• Compuserve Network Services• ANS ISP• Provides transport to America Online,
Earthlink, Microsoft Network• $500 million in Internet Revenue
• 400,000 dial-up customers• Private wholesale services to 25-35%
of all ISPs.• $200 million estimated revenue• Sold to C&W as part of EU approval
International • 60 settlement agreements globally• $470 million in revenues• Metro infrastructure in 12 cities• UUNet’s European backbone in 10 cities
• 200 settlement agreements globally• Licenses in UK, Germany• Top bid on Embratel
WorldCom MCI
Wireless • Choicecom• Few of its other LD or CLEC acquisitions
have major wireless play
• Holds on wireless licenses• Nationwide Cellular Services (a reseller)• Operates in 15-20 markets• 400,000 subscribers• Paging reseller (through PagNet),
over 600k subs.
RBOCs into Long Distance
Telecom Act of 1996New Competitive Telecom Services Market
“An act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies” IXCs, Cable and CAPs Allowed to Enter Local Exchange
IXCs with more than 5% of the nations presubscribed lines is not able to joint market local and long distance services until RBOCs are granted in-region relief
Mandated LEC Resale at Fair and Reasonable Prices RBOCs Enter Out-of-Region Long Distance immediately RBOCs Open Local Markets in Exchange for In-Region Long Distance
Pressure of New Integrated Telecom MarketBeyond Resale/Bundling to Service Innovation
Leveraging Established Customer Relationshipsto Provide New Services
RBOC Entry into Long Distance
Ameritech • Announced it will begin offering long distance in Missouri;
• Marketing Alliance with Qwest (in-region)
Offering Services
Approved Services
WholesaleSupplier
• 45 States • WorldCom
In-regionLaunch
• 1999
Bell Atlantic /NYNEX
• 34 States • 34 States and plans to file in Minnesota and Oklahoma
• Sprint • 1998?
Bell South ----- • 39 states and applications pending in Vermont and Alaska
• AT&T • 1999
SBC / PacTel • 5 States • Sprint • 1999• 5 States
US WEST • NONE• Marketing Alliance
with Qwest (in-region)
• 34 States • FrontierCard
• Williams?• Qwest?
• 1999
Biggest Hurdle for the RBOCsOSS Access and Interconnection
Required under the Act
ILEC must provide access to its OSSs on terms that are just reasonable, and non discriminatory
RBOCs have been frustrated in their 271 applications by OSS issues:
Not able to show flow through of orders and service transactions from CLECs
Push for National Gateway in some quarters, but who pays the bill?
Call for Standards by many parties (NARUC, ATIS, etc.)
Manual processes pre te
Conclusions
Nice try but too early. Not likely to make first-round approval based on Track A (of two tracks) benchmarks
Lack of ‘competing providers to residential and business subscribers’ by companies that ‘offer services predominantly over their own telephone service facilities’
Competition and interconnect deals are with competitors that are focused on business
AT&T, has stopped marketing to residential customers in the six markets where it resells ILEC services to the residential market
the Yankee Group believes that the first approval for RBOC entry into in-region LD will be around 4Q98 or early 99. BANY is most likely to succeed
Integrated Carrier Strategies
& Large Business
Market Issues
source: YC100 1996
Do Large Biz Customers Care About Service Integration?
If Given A Choice:
70% of Businesses Say They Would Use One Company for All Their Communication Needs
Key Reasons:
Less Effort to Manage the Network 68%
One Stop Shopping 62%
Lower Costs 59%
Source: YG WSTA Survey 1996
How important to the purchasing decision are the following factors? 5= very important 1 = not important
…but Price isn’t Everything
4.8 4.7
4.2 4.2 4.1
1
2
3
4
5Service quality
Carrier responsiveness
Pricing
Ease of doing business
Service in majorlocations
AT&T MCI MFS Worldcom Sprint
One Rate/TrueValue BundlesAT&T.All
MCI OneFriends & Family
Worldcom Sprint Sense
TCG and TCIDigital LinkProject Angel?
MCI Local MFSBrooks Fiber
Sprint LocalIONBroadband MANs
WorldNet Internet MCI UUNET Sprint InternetPassport
AT&T WirelessCellular/PCS,Alpha/2-wayPaging
NationwideCellular, NextwavePCS, AlphaPaging
Choice Cellular Sprint SpectrumPCSAlpha Paging
800, Network ACD,SDN,500 True Conn.,Voice Messaging
800, Network ACDVNet, Vision,MCI One,Voice Messaging
800, VPN 800, Network IVR,VPN, Voice Act.Dialing, VoiceMessaging
TCIOther CableCos?
Primestar/NewsCorp??
? NA
Brand
Local
Internet
Wireless
Video
Enhanced Telephony
Long Distance Integrated Carriers
Wholesale Services
Wholesale
All facilities based LD carriers, whether they are national or regional in nature wholesale LD services to each other, to smaller carriers and to resellers
Over time, the four largest LD carriers have increased their revenue contribution from the wholesale channels
Frontier’s agreement to sell capacity to Level 3 is an example of the renewed focus on wholesale by smaller LD carriers such as C&W and LCI
Wholesale (Continued)
New entrants such as Qwest, IXC, Williams and Level 3 will expand the wholesale market but will also put significant price pressure on wholesale rates
New services such as IP, and new entrants in local and LD market are expected to feed the demand for wholesale service
We estimate the wholesale market to be around $ 8.3 billion
ELDP Diversification Strategies
IXC Communications
in addition to carrier’s carrier services, offering switched, freephone, calling card and data services
Looking to acquire smaller retail players
Qwest Communications
direct retail plays through VoIP, dial-around
acquisitions of LCI, SuperNet
looking to enter the large corporate market
Williams Companies
leverage already large network integration business
Level 3 Communications
purchased Data CLEC XCOM
Voice Over Whatever:Demand for Alternative
Voice Services
Considering26%
Deployed
31%
In Next 6
Months14%
Not Likely29%
Fax12%
Voice36%
Both52%
Fax14%
Voice20%
Both66%
Fax32%
Voice19%
Both49%
Key Issue: What is the current status of Voice Services Over Alternative Networks (TCP/IP, Frame Relay and ATM)?
Key Context Issue: How much data is moving over TCP/IP, Frame Relay and ATM today...
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
1 to 10
11 to 25
26 to 50
>50
% t
raff
ic
% respondents
PL Intra/ Managed Internet FR ATM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1 to 10
11 to 25
26 to 50
>50
% o
f tr
affi
c
% respondents
PL Intra/ Managed Internet FR ATM
Frame Relay takes over
Key Context Issue: How much data is moving over TCP/IP, Frame Relay and ATM in 5 years...
0% 5% 10% 15%
1 to 10
11 to 25
26 to 50
>50
% o
f tr
affi
c
% respondents
PL Intra/ Managed Internet FR ATM
Slow migration of voice, for all services
Key Issue: How much voice traffic will migrate to VSANs over the next five years?
Fax keeps pace
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
1 to 10
11 to 25
26 to 50
>50
% o
f tr
affi
c
% of respondents
PL Intra/ Managed Internet FR ATM
Key Issue: What are the reasons for choosing VSANs?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Improve Network Management
Support Multimedia
Better Bandwidth Utilization
Save Money
IP Telephony MOUs as a Percentage of Total Consumer MOUs (1998-2005)
0.4 0.81.9
3.5
79
12
15
02468
10121416
% of LD MOUs
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
top related