There's an interesting story making the rounds this morning, with some opposing views already being expressed.

Om Malik posted his findings and thoughts on an idea that's been gaining traction for a while in the dark hallways of the traditional telco world.

Global Telcos Plotting a Skype Rival?
AT&T, in conjunction with some 10-15 incumbent telecom carriers -- British Telecom, Deutsche Telecom and NTT among them -- is plotting to launch a Skype competitor, according to a research report issued this morning by ThinkEquity analyst Anton Wahlman.

This is Wahlman's theory for now, but his track record is full of theories that have eventually been proven right. For instance, he once issued a report that outlined 16 reasons why Cisco should buy Scientific Atlanta -- which the networking giant went on to do, for $6.9 billion. For that reason alone, I put in a call to AT&T to get the lowdown, but all they would offer was the boilerplate phrase, "We can't comment on this type of speculation."

Anyway, back to the Skype competitor! Essentially what Wahlman is saying is that incumbents are going to offer a VoIP client that will work on the incumbent broadband/3G wireless pipe, and will use a backend platform that will allow folks to make free voice calls to anyone who's logged into it.
[Read Om's full post]

What I really looked for was Om's assessment of this whole idea. Here's what he said that really mattered most.

In the past, carriers have
merely taken half-measures to address the voice-for-free problem. So this is radical new thinking: If voice is a losing business, why shouldn't the carriers cannibalize it themselves, then sell other services, including video? As Wahlman noted, "Robust data connection is the most valuable service the carriers sell."

Amen to that. I just find it hard to believe that the dinosaurs are finally getting jiggy with this new way of thinking.

Several other notable bloggers who really understand the communications space have weighed in.

Tom Keating - Telcos Join Forces to Battle Skype?
Erik Lagerway - 3G Skype Killer - Action or Words?
Jim Courtney - Much Ado About Nothing....

While opinions do vary, I think Jim summed it up best, although, I agree with Jim for different reasons that he articulates. Here's what Jim said -

But, for all this saber rattling, isn't there a much simpler solution that would get the telcos into the P2P voice space much faster, especially since the basic innovation is already in place (and probably protected under intellectual property registrations)? Maybe the telcos should simply license Skype's technology.
Nah, but that would cut out the intellectual property and litigation lawyers' fees and investment bankers' commissions that would come from having new players in the P2P voice game. (And maybe even take away the need for research reports.)

For all its faults on the business and operations side, the Skype ecosystem's technology is simply too far advanced for anyone to play catch-up with any long term success. Look at aspects such as Skype's current research and development on voice and video technology (if you haven't installed Skype 3.8 for Windows, do it now) as well as the experience garnered in pioneering communications enhanced business processes by both Skype and its partners.

Yes, all the telcos' efforts are "much ado about nothing" -- especially when it comes to voice revenues. (Hat tip to William Shakespeare)

Saber rattling, yes. Absolutely. The telcos are hearing the message of Alec Saunders' Voice 2.0 Manifesto. But it's too little too late. The legacy telecom business is in a very slow death spiral. Some of the old incumbents will reinvent themselves in time to survive. Some will die a painful, ugly death. Voice services have changed forever, and will continue to change. They'll change and evolve more rapidly next year than last year. The speed of innovation and change is increasing.

The legacy telco industry isn't speedy. Hasn't been innovative in years. Is still trying to learn competition in the US after years of governmental sponsored monopoly. Divestiture of the old Bell System was 24 years ago, yet the industry is, in many ways, just reaching 1990 in their cultural evolution.

On the other hand, I don't fully agree with Jim. While he's right about Skype from a technological standpoint, I don't think the faults on the business and operations side can be offset. Sure they do great voice and video technology, but Skype sucks at customer service. That's pretty widely known. And the eBay management team has proven their track record. So while the Skype technology innovators continue to improve, the business side continues to degrade.

Remember that the telecom industry wasn't built on the newest an most innovative technologies. Not for the last 50 years. Truly. The last really big innovation the big telcos delivered to customers was touch tone dialing, and that was just over 50 years ago. Everything else has been me too improvements built on the back of innovative small entrepreneurs. But the customer base, and huge revenue stream was built on the business and operations side of the equation. Skype's business and operations side can't handle the weight of the PSTN customer base. Not even close.

I think the real answer lies somewhere just across the horizon. Somewhere we can't quite see today. But it isn't coming from the legacy telcos and it isn't coming from Skype. They're both too ripe for disruption from unexpected quarters.

What we'll see is incremental, steady improvement from Skype, who's now become and incumbent. That's why they're ripe for disruption. And from the telcos? Marketing speak. Doubletalk. The spin doctors will spin their inability to deliver.