Network Computingwww.networkcomputing.com

By now the failed buyout of Sprint by WorldCom is old news. Stockholders have finished crying, and customers now have renewed faith in the government. With the buyout called off, you would expect Sprint and WorldCom to conduct business as usual--not so. It seems as though management at both companies had started counting the eggs that were expected to hatch as a result of the buyout. Sprint in particular seemed to be thrown into utter turmoil at having to do actual work when I contacted it about taking part in an RFP covering international service. The company had been so busy figuring out how to cut jobs and consolidate functions with WorldCom that no one even thought about what to do if it weren't actually bought. Remember, WorldCom only wanted the wireless division; everything else probably would have been sold off, dropped or transferred to existing WorldCom offerings.

What were members of the board of directors at these companies thinking in not considering what would happen if the deal fell apart late in the game? Or maybe we should ask, "What were they smoking?" Sprint could now be left behind in the market because it did not expand its networks or services while the buyout was in negotiations. How many commercials from the "pin drop" company do you remember during the merger as compared to the number aired before talks began? MCI was almost in the same predicament prior to WorldCom picking it up. MCI had just been shown the door by BT, but it realized that growth needed to happen in its core data networks and set out to do just that. Most buildouts continued even as the ink was drying on the final legal documents. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

What's to be done? Companies this large should not be allowed to change their business until after a merger has been approved by all directors, stockholders and countries involved. This means that both companies should continue buying equipment, building out their networks and improving customer relations. I'm sure this statement will prompt some guy in a suit to send me a nasty e-mail, telling me that it is just not economically feasible to do that. He will also tell me that the whole purpose is to save money before the merger, which would be spent unnecessarily on equipment, manpower and services superfluous to the merged entity.

Twenty years ago I would buy the idea that saving money during a merger was a good one, since companies that merge typically need to do so for continued survival. But today mergers don't happen for that reason. Both companies usually have plenty of money in the bank, are easily operating in the black, and will continue to do so for years to come. Management is not thinking of customers or making the transition as transparent as possible--instead they are thinking about their stockholders. Decades ago, the two were synonymous. Not anymore.

Customers now take a backseat to the stockholders. "Not enough bandwidth in our network? Sorry. We can't do anything about it because that would mean less money for our stockholders." While this is an extreme statement, customers may find providers slowly inching back the amount of burstable bandwidth if they're not paying attention.

By counting their eggs instead of keeping them warm, will Sprint be left with a nest of rotting eggs or enjoy a gaggle of happy, cheeping chicks? Time will tell, but customers are hoping for happy and healthy.

Send your comments on this column to Darrin Woods at dwoods@nwc.com.