COMPETITIVE AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
Overview Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to deregulate U.S. telecommunications markets. Despite passage of this Act, the telecommunications industry, particularly incumbent local exchange carriers such as our wireline subsidiaries, and advanced services including DSL, continue to operate under heavy regulation. The expected transition from an industry extensively regulated by multiple regulatory bodies to a market-driven industry monitored by state and federal agencies has not occurred as anticipated. Our wireline subsidiaries remain subject to extensive regulation by state regulatory commissions for intrastate services and by the FCC for interstate services. For example, certain state commissions, including those in California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, have significantly lowered the rates we are allowed to charge competitors for leasing parts of our network (unbundled network elements, or UNEs). When UNEs are combined by incumbent local exchange carriers into a complete set capable of providing total local service to a customer, then they are referred to as an UNE-Platform, (UNE-P). These mandated rates, which are below our cost, are resulting in increased competition in some states, particularly for the most profitable customers, and significantly contributing to continuing declines in our access-line revenues and profitability. If this trend were to continue, we could experience additional and more significant declines in access-line revenues, which, in turn, could reduce returns on our invested capital and compel us to further reduce capital expenditures and employee levels.
This continuing difficult and uncertain regulatory environment combined with the downturn in the U.S. economy and increasing local competition from multiple wireline and wireless providers in various markets presents significant challenges for our business. A summary of significant second quarter 2002 regulatory developments follows.
InterconnectionIn May 2002, the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) upheld FCC UNE pricing rules that govern the rates incumbent local exchange carriers, such as our wireline subsidiaries, charge competitors for interconnection and for leasing portions of the incumbents’ telephone networks. The FCC rules require incumbents to charge competitors rates based on lower, hypothetical costs that competitors would incur for building a new, most efficient telephone network rather than on incumbents’ historical, incurred costs, which are higher. The Supreme Court also upheld FCC rules requiring incumbents to perform the functions necessary to combine unbundled network elements for competitors when they are unable to perform the combination themselves or unaware that they need to combine elements to provide a telecommunications service.
Unbundled Network Elements/Line Sharing In May 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Court of Appeals) granted petitions filed by several incumbents, including our wireline subsidiaries, and the United States Telecom Association to remand and vacate the FCC’s UNE Remand and Line Sharing Orders. The UNE Remand Order expanded the definition of UNEs and required incumbents, such as our wireline subsidiaries, to lease a variety of UNEs to competitors. The Line Sharing Order required incumbents to share the high frequency portion of local telephone lines with competitors so that competitors could offer DSL services on a national basis. The Court of Appeals overturned the FCC’s unbundling and line sharing rules. Specifically, the Court found that the FCC failed to properly apply the statutory “necessary and impair” requirement in deciding which UNEs needed to be unbundled and did not consider the costs of overly expansive unbundling requirements and the relevance of competition for broadband services from cable and, to a lesser extent, satellite offerings. While the FCC continues its triennial review of incumbent unbundling and line sharing obligations in light of this ruling and current marketplace conditions, which the FCC expects to complete by the end of the year, we have voluntarily committed to maintain our affected line sharing offerings at least until February 15, 2003. During this period, we have indicated a willingness to work with our wholesale customers to develop mutually acceptable market-based offerings and prices related to line sharing. These actions are intended to provide certainty to our wholesale line sharing customers while preserving our rights.
Texas Rate Reclassification In June 2002, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a 1999 Texas Public Utility Commission (TPUC) order allows our Texas wireline subsidiary to reclassify 32 telephone exchanges (including Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin) to a higher rate group, effectively increasing customers’ monthly charges as access lines grow in those exchanges. We expect the TPUC to approve the reclassifications, possibly during the fourth quarter of 2002, with an estimated annual revenue increase of approximately $20. We also are entitled to recover the fees retroactively from the date of the TPUC’s original 1999 order (estimated at a minimum of $110, including interest, at June 30, 2002) Based on the present value of this gross amount, discounted for collectibility, we recorded revenue of $47 during the second quarter. Our method of recovery is subject to approval by the TPUC.
California Long-Distance In July 2002, a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Administrative Law Judge issued a proposed decision conditionally approving our California wireline subsidiary’s application to enter the long-distance market in California. The CPUC is expected to consider a final ruling on this draft decision by the end of August 2002. Upon approval by the CPUC we will then file for approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) before providing long-distance service in California. The FCC must issue its decision within 90 days of our filing. At least until we receive long-distance relief, our competitive local service losses will continue at an increasing rate because of the abnormally low UNE-P rates in California.
California DSL Settlement In settlement of a complaint and CPUC investigation regarding the billing practices of our California wireline subsidiary and advance services affiliates, in July 2002, our subsidiaries agreed to pay the state of California approximately $27 (fully accrued at June 30, 2002), improve billing practices and compensate customers for future billing errors. The agreement is pending CPUC approval, which is expected during the third quarter of 2002.
Ohio Service Quality Resolution In July 2002, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) concluded its investigation of our Ohio wireline subsidiary, restoring the subsidiary’s ability to pay dividends to the parent company without prior PUCO approval.
OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS
New Accounting Standards Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations”, is effective January 1, 2003. The standard requires companies with legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets to recognize the fair value of the liability for these asset retirement obligations in the period in which the obligations are incurred and capitalize that amount as a part of the book value of the long-lived asset. We are currently evaluating the standard but do not expect it to have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 145, “Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections” is effective January 1, 2003. Among other things, this statement rescinds FASB Statement No. 4, “Reporting Gains and Losses from Extinguishment of Debt” which required all gains and losses from extinguishment of debt to be aggregated and, if material, classified as an extraordinary item, net of related income tax effect. We do not expect the standard to have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position.
Disposition See Note 2 for a discussion of our disposition of a portion of our interest in Bell Canada.
WorldCom Bankruptcy On July 21, 2002, WorldCom filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Our receivables from WorldCom as of the bankruptcy filing were approximately $325. At June 30, 2002, we had reserves of approximately $200 related to that filing. We plan to ask the federal bankruptcy court to utilize existing contract provisions to offset the amounts we have collected from WorldCom’s long-distance customers, in our role as a billing agent for WorldCom, against unpaid pre-bankruptcy charges WorldCom owes us. Additionally, we plan to ask the bankruptcy court to approve offset of other amounts we owe WorldCom for pre-bankruptcy periods against unpaid pre-bankruptcy charges. We will also seek assurance of payment of post-bankruptcy charges from the court, which we estimate at approximately $150 per month. We have not reserved for an adverse court decision. WorldCom’s bankruptcy proceeding is currently in its initial stages and the effect on our financial position or results of operations cannot be determined at this time.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
We had $543 in cash and cash equivalents available at June 30, 2002. During the first six months of 2002 and 2001 our primary source of funds continued to be cash provided by operating activities. As of June 30, 2002, we had entered into agreements with several banks for committed lines of credit totaling $3,700, all of which may be used to support commercial paper borrowings. We had no borrowings outstanding under these lines of credit as of June 30, 2002. Subsequently, we replaced these with new lines of credit which total $3,805 as of August 12, 2002. Drawdowns on these committed lines of credit must be repaid within one year and are conditioned on there being no material adverse change in our business, operations or financial condition.
Our commercial paper borrowings decreased $1,042 during the first six months of 2002, and at June 30, 2002, totaled $4,997, of which $4,710 was due within 90 days and $287 was due thereafter. In the first quarter of 2002 SBC International initiated a commercial paper borrowing program in order to simplify intercompany borrowing arrangements. Our total commercial paper borrowings include borrowings under this program of $2,949 at June 30, 2002. This is consistent with our current focus on replacing short-term debt with long-term debt.
Our investing activities during the first six months of 2002 consisted of $3,496 in construction and capital expenditures, primarily in the wireline segment. Investing activities during the first six months of 2002 also include proceeds of $93 relating to the sale of Amdocs shares and $197 related to the sale of Telmex and América Móvil L shares. Cash paid for asset acquisitions in 2002 include approximately $300 for our first-quarter 2002 Yahoo! investment and $106 in payments to América Móvil for our purchase of a 50% non-controlling interest in Cellular Communications of Puerto Rico. We currently expect our capital spending for 2002 to be less than $8,000, excluding Cingular, reflecting a previously announced reduction in order to reduce expenses in response to the U.S. economic decline and our lower revenue expectations.
In June 2002, we entered into an agreement to redeem a portion of our ownership in Bell Canada, representing approximately 4% of the company, for an $873 short-term note, resulting in a pre-tax gain of approximately $148. Under the terms of the agreement, on July 15, 2002 when we received the proceeds from the short-term note, we purchased approximately 9 million shares of BCE, the majority shareholder of Bell Canada, for approximately $164. We have also entered into an agreement that gives us the right to sell to BCE our remaining interest in Bell Canada, representing approximately 16% of the company, for a one-month period beginning on January 3, 2003. The same agreement also gives BCE the right to purchase our remaining interest for a one-month period beginning October 15, 2002. BCE has indicated that it is likely to exercise its right.
The agreement specifies a price of 4,990 Canadian Dollars (CAD) ($3,285 at June 30, 2002 exchange rates) to be paid by BCE with 1,548 CAD in cash and the remainder in a combination of cash, notes and BCE stock. The market price of BCE shares on June 30, 2002 was 26.39 CAD per share.
Upon the sale of our remaining interest in Bell Canada, BCE has the right to redeem notes held by us, at face value, for 314 CAD ($207 at June 30, 2002 exchange rates), plus accrued interest. Otherwise, the notes will mature on December 31, 2004. Our carrying value of the notes at June 30, 2002 was approximately $180.
Short-term borrowings with original maturities of three months or less increased $337 in the first six months of 2002 due to increased borrowing of shorter term commercial paper under our commercial paper borrowing program. However, total commercial paper decreased approximately $1,042 during the six month period. We also spent $1,223 in the first six months of 2002 on the repurchase of shares of our common stock under the repurchase plans announced in January 2000 and in November 2001. As of June 30, 2002, we had repurchased a total of approximately 131 million shares of our common stock of the 200 million shares authorized to be repurchased. Cash paid for dividends in the first six months of 2002 was $1,762, or 2.0% higher than in the first six months of 2001, due to an increase in dividends declared per share in 2002.
During the first quarter of 2002, we reclassified $1,000 of 20-year annual Puttable Reset Securities (PURS) from debt maturing within one year to long-term debt. The notes bear interest at approximately 4.30% annually until June 2003, at which time an investment bank has an option to require us to remarket or redeem the notes. If the option is exercised, the investment bank will reset the interest rate and remarket the notes for another 12-month term. If the bank does not exercise its option on that reset date, we will be required to redeem the notes at par. The company supports this long-term classification based on its intent and ability to refinance the PURS on a long-term basis under available lines of credit.
We also redeemed, prior to maturity, approximately $55 of debt obligations during June 2002. In February 2002, we issued approximately $1,000 of 10-year, 5.875%, global notes. Proceeds from this debt issuance were used for general corporate purposes. In March 2002, we issued approximately $1,000 of variable rate, one-year notes. The interest rate is based on the London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR). Proceeds from this debt issuance were used to refinance debt.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
There has been no material change in the disclosures about our sensitivities to market risks related to financial instruments since December 31, 2001.
CAUTIONARY LANGUAGE CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Information set forth in this report contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. We claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The following factors could cause our future results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements:
- Adverse economic changes in the markets served by SBC or in countries in which SBC has significant investments.
- Changes in available technology and the effects of such changes including product substitutions and deployment costs.
- The final outcome of FCC proceedings, including rulemakings, and judicial review, if any, of such proceedings, including issues relating to jurisdiction.
- The final outcome of state regulatory proceedings in SBC’s 13-state area, and judicial review, if any, of such proceedings, including proceedings relating to interconnection terms, access charges, universal service, unbundled network elements and Platforms (UNE-Ps) and resale rates, SBC’s broadband initiative known as Project Pronto, service standards and reciprocal compensation.
- Enactment of additional state, federal and/or foreign regulatory laws and regulations pertaining to our subsidiaries and foreign investments.
- The timing of entry and the extent of competition in the local and intraLATA toll markets in SBC’s 13-state area and the resulting pressure on access line totals and operating margins.
- Our ability to develop attractive and profitable product/service offerings to offset increasing competition in our wireline and wireless markets.
- The ability of our competitors to offer product/service offerings at lower prices due to adverse regulatory decisions, including state regulatory proceedings relating to UNE-Ps
- Additional delays in our entry into the in-region long-distance market.
- The issuance by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or other accounting oversight bodies of new accounting standards or changes to existing standards.
- The impact of the Ameritech transaction, including performance with respect to regulatory requirements, and merger integration efforts.
- The timing, extent and cost of deployment of Project Pronto, its effect on the carrying value of the existing wireline network and the level of consumer demand for offered services.
- The impact of the wireless joint venture with BellSouth, known as Cingular, including marketing and product-development efforts, access to additional spectrum, technological advancements and financial capacity.
- Decisions by federal and state regulators and courts relating to bankruptcies of industry participants.
Readers are cautioned that other factors discussed in this report, although not enumerated here, also could materially impact our future earnings.
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION
Item 2. Changes in Securities and Use of Proceeds
During the second quarter of 2002, non-employee directors acquired from the Company shares of common stock pursuant to the Company’s Non-Employee Director Stock and Deferral Plan. Under the plan, a director may make an annual election to receive all or part of his or her annual retainer or fees in the form of SBC shares or deferred stock units (DSUs) that are convertible into SBC shares. Each Director also receives an annual grant of DSUs. During this period, an aggregate of 65,511 SBC shares and DSUs were acquired by non-employee directors at prices ranging from $30.15 to $36.66, in each case the fair market value of the shares on the date of acquisition. The issuances of shares and DSUs were exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Annual Meeting of Shareowners
(a) | The annual meeting of the shareowners of SBC Communications Inc. (SBC) was held on April 26, 2002, in San Antonio, Texas. Shareowners representing 2,774,183,711 shares of common stock as of the February 28, 2002 record date were present in person or were represented at the meeting by proxy. |
(b) | At the meeting, holders of common shares voted as indicated below to elect the following persons to the Board of Directors for a three-year term: |
DIRECTOR | SHARES FOR | SHARES WITHHELD* |
James E. Barnes | 2,684,627,315 | 89,556,396 |
August A. Busch III | 2,701,329,051 | 72,854,660 |
William P. Clark | 2,700,271,335 | 73,912,376 |
Lynn M. Martin | 2,700,533,940 | 73,649,771 |
Mary S. Metz | 2,685,782,599 | 88,401,112 |
Laura D’Andrea Tyson | 2,574,221,262 | 199,962,449 |
Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. | 2,670,994,983 | 103,188,728 |
| *Includes shares represented at the meeting by proxy where the shareowner withheld authority to vote for the indicated director or directors, as well as shares present at the meeting which were not voted for such director or directors. |
(c) | Shareowners ratified the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors of SBC for the year ended December 31, 2002. The vote was 2,655,230,912 FOR and 90,293,043 AGAINST, with 28,659,756 shares ABSTAINING. |
Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K
| Exhibit 10-ab | SBC Communications Officer Guidelines. |
| Exhibit 10-ac | Financial Counseling Policy |
| Exhibit 10-ad | Officer Auto Allowance Policy |
| Exhibit 10-ae | 1995 Management Stock Option Plan |
| Exhibit 12 | Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges. |
| On June 24, 2002, we filed a Form 8-K, reporting on Item 5. Other Events. In the report, we disclosed a press release announcing our move to product based revenue categories. |
| On June 28, 2002, we filed a Form 8-K, reporting on Item 5. Other Events. In the report, we announced an agreement to sell a portion of our interest in Bell Canada. |
| On August 1, 2002, we filed a Form 8-K, reporting on Item 5. Other Events. In the report, we disclosed a portion of our second quarter earnings release and a reclassification on our balance sheet. |
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
August 12, 2002 | /s/ Randall Stephenson |
| Senior Executive Vice President |
| and Chief Financial Officer |