Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2016 Conference Call. During the presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. Afterwards, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded Wednesday, February 15, 2017. I would now like to turn the conference over to Susan Villare. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning. Welcome to Sonus Networks' fourth quarter and full year 2016 financial results conference call. Today's press release and supplementary data have been posted to our IR website at sonus.net and submitted to the SEC. A recording of this call and the transcript will be available on our IR website shortly after the call. During our prepared remarks, we will be referring to a presentation with supporting information. Please take a moment to locate these documents on our IR website. As shown on slide two, please note that during this call, we will be making forward-looking statements regarding items such as business strategy, future market opportunities and the company's financial outlook. Actual events or financial results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements and are subject to various risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, economic conditions, market acceptance of our products and services, the timing of customer purchasing decisions, and revenue recognition, difficulties leveraging market opportunities and integrating acquired businesses and lastly, the impact of cost containment efforts. A discussion of these and other factors that may affect our future results is contained in our most recent 10-Q filed with the SEC and in today's earnings release, both of which are available on our website. While we may elect to update or revise forward-looking statements at some point, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so. During our call, we will be referring to certain GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP to the comparable GAAP financial measures is included in our presentation on our website and our press release issued today. With that, let me turn it over to the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sonus, Ray Dolan.

Good morning and welcome to everyone on the call today. I'm pleased to report that Q4 was another solid quarter for Sonus with results in line with the guidance we've provided in October. For the full year 2016, we posted another year of solid progress, highlighted by some major customer wins, continued margin progress and expense controls, another strategic acquisition and approximately $19 million of cash flow from operations. While we delivered these results in 2016, we also maintained our significant technology investment to ensure that we lead the industry's transition to a cloud architecture. In 2016, we spent approximately 27% of our revenue on R&D on a non-GAAP basis. This R&D focus has been a consistent theme for Sonus since I joined in 2010. Our multi-year commitment to R&D is paying off, my recent discussions with senior executives at service providers, enterprises, cloud providers and technology partners confirm that we are focused on the critical technologies that can lead to a more affordable, more secure internet. Not just for voice but for all flows. It's a very big strategy and I'll talk more about it shortly. I'll offer a few comments up front regarding our financial performance as well as our outlook for 2017. Susan will provide further financial details. 2016 revenue was up slightly compared to last year. Non-GAAP EPS was $0.33, which equates to 7.2% of non-GAAP operating income. This ranks amongst the highest annual financial performance over the past six years since I've been the CEO of Sonus. Our gross margin progress provided us with the opportunity to keep investing while improving our profitability. Looking forward, my best judgment currently calls for another year of flat to low-single digit revenue growth for 2017. I also want to clarify right up front that we currently expect the…

Thank you, Ray. As a reminder, gross margin, operating expense, operating income, net income and loss per share are all discussed on a non-GAAP basis and have been reconciled to you at the end of today's press release and in the presentation. The slides in our IR portal have lots of detail regarding our historical financial performance, and we utilized a reporting framework consistent with what we have presented in prior periods. We encourage you to get these materials from our IR website. Let's now move to slide three and take a closer look at our fourth quarter 2016 non-GAAP consolidated financial results. Total revenue was $67.6 million, which was in line with our guidance. Non-GAAP gross margin was 70%, which was significantly above our guidance. Our non-GAAP operating expenses were $42.4 million, which was also better than our guidance, and was a result of continued cost-containment efforts. Our strong revenue mix coupled with lower operating expenses, generated a solid non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.09. This was very favorable as compared to our guidance of $0.04 to $0.07. I'd now like to turn to slide four to provide a little color on the impact of the Taqua acquisition on our consolidated financial results for fiscal 2016. Total Taqua revenue from the acquisition close date, which was September 26, through fiscal year end was $1.8 million. Non-GAAP loss per share over that same period was a loss of $0.06. Taqua restructuring activities are still in process, and we anticipate their full completion by the end of the first half of 2017. I'd like to now move to slide five, which is our condensed balance sheet. Cash and investments were $126.1 million at fiscal year-end 2016 as compared to $121 million in Q3 2016. The $5.1 million of sequential increase…

Thank you. Our first question is coming from the line of Jess Lubert with Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead.

Guys, thanks for taking the question. A couple of questions, but maybe just first on the outlook, it seems like assuming you hit your first half numbers you'd need to see fairly strong double digit sequential growth in the back half of the year to get to flat from a revenue perspective in 2017. So, I guess, I was just hoping to understand how much of your second half optimism is dependent on the one large competitive replacement win, and what needs to happen for this deal to get to revenue recognition, and how much visibility do you have that this deal is likely to close in the second half versus potentially pushing out to 2018? That's my first one.

Hey, Jess. It's Ray. And I'll be happy to answer that first one, and we'll anticipate more. So on the outlook, we tried to be as transparent as we can on linearity. The outlook on the second half – you're welcome to do the math year-over-year, but I built it from the bottoms up, and the math ends up being what it is. You can do the same math last year, and say we had huge first half year-over-year, but it was because the prior year was so weak. So we're just trying to line up the deals as they fall. We've got good visibility into the second half. I tried to lay out the book-to-bill ratios that we've been experiencing, the backlog that we've been experiencing and so I feel comfortable with this framework, completely. Second, with regard to the specific large deal, as I said, it is a double digit million dollar deal. We have very good visibility. I'm personally the executive sponsor, we have some very senior execs there. It's been underway for multiple years already. It's very much on track. In fact we're ahead of schedule. I feel comfortable saying that the folks on the other side of the table are thrilled. In fact, it's begun to generate discussion about going further beyond where we are on the interconnect side of the business into a broader multi-footprint. So not only that, it's having kind of a watershed effect around the industry because people talk. And folks now know that the brand of Sonus is associated with multi – with some of the largest and most strenuous network focused players in the world. So with regard to just frankly the model, I'm very comfortable that it'll score in the second half. If anything falls off track we'll be transparent about that, but I don't expect it at all. In fact, I'd say we're ahead of the initial schedules. There are FOA's that need to score based on the contract in order for it to be rev-wrecked. And if any of those do get delayed, we'll be transparent about it, but I don't expect that. The more strategic implications is this is opening up a very wide aperture for us going into Mobile World Congress for us to be a full-fledged mobile player. So that's what I'm really excited about.

Are there similar competitive replacement deals out there, like the big one you've mentioned that you're engaged in right now that you think have a chance to fall into the year that aren't in the numbers? Or is it too early to say at this point in time?

I don't think anything that's large has a chance to fall into 2017. This is a multiyear project. If we are successful in broadening this beyond this large brand, it's probably influencing some of the other Tier 1s that we're building on voice-over-WiFi, because it'll bridge into VoLTE. I tried to articulate that. It's a very large brand in Latin America, specifically in Mexico, and a very large brand in South Africa. This is changing the entire tone of our discussion. One, the entire acquisition of our prior competitor has left them basically ignored inside of a large corporation that has strategic conflict with some of these search providers. And second, our continued focus on R&D and the fact that we've not only virtualized, but cloudified everything is giving these service providers an opportunity to fight back. Many people think that they're dead because everybody is going to ride over the top of them, and the security complex is going to drain the blood out of the carcass that's left in the network. We are coming back to them with an opportunity through SDN, and our voice heritage is a natural extension for us to own VoLTE going forward. It's just taken us a while. Remember, this is a company that got stuck in the core of voice fixed networks. It's taken us a while to get to the edge and to build the access features out. It's taken us a while to build a common platform to virtualize from one session to infinite sessions in every hypervisor environment. And now with the way we decompose, there are a lot of other players that may, hey, I'm going to decompose and throw some stuff into open source. I mean, the way they decompose is like the equivalent of taking the lid off a jar of pickle. Anybody could decompose by separating signaling in the media plane. We did it very thoughtfully and discreetly for years, and now people trust us, that for the same reason we got designed into all the large voice networks at the turn of the century, we will be at some point designed into all of the large converged SDN plays. And those are going to be cloud plays. We have bridged into detailed cloud discussions with all of the hyperscale players, as well as just the basic Layer 2, interconnect, meet in the mall kind of stuff that's out there. So this is a very exciting time for us, but frankly, in 2017, it is what it is. We're not linear. We're profitable. We'll generate cash. We'll be transparent, and this big brand is probably going to have an outweighed impact on our second half, but I don't believe that's a risk at the time.

And then it looks like while revenue from the 5000 and 7000 platforms rose for the full year, it actually declined sequentially in year-over-year during the fourth quarter, and actually had one of the lowest revenue quarters since Q3 of last year. So is it fair to assume, as some of these big deals in the back half start to unfold that we should expect revenue from the 5000 and 7000 to also be accelerating, or is there more of a transition towards software to where the revenue mix is changing? And maybe it's more about virtual taking a bigger part of the revenue and hardware maybe playing less of a role going forward? How should we think about that as we move into the second half of the year?

I'll give you my current thinking, Jess, but I do believe I'll be more informed by midyear to tell you that, because this large project is virtualized. More and more companies for years have wanted to go to virtualized, but they've needed other parts of the ecosystem to get there, and we've needed to get all of our surrounding elements there. So I would be pleased with either outcome. If people want to go back and do things in the 5000, 7000 for the next ten years, our margins on those products at half full are awesome, and at full density are incredibly awesome. But as they evolve towards a software architecture, I actually think not only will our revenues and margins be roughly the same, but it will drive us into owning a cloud architecture. And once we get baked into their fundamental cloud architectures that are distributed from like a white box virtual CPE architecture of the edge, whether that's on-premise or not, then it moves to a hosted model, and then it moves to distributed across the cloud and the data center. I'll take that all day long. I mean, we're doing some very exciting things in length, for example. I know a lot of folks make hay about the CCE announcements. We announced Cloud Connect in the second half of last year, we've got a very strategic relationship with Microsoft. We've been investing in that for years since we bought NET. But the on-prem solution is just never going to have the cost structure associated with a hosted environment. And I think Microsoft and other players are starting to realize that, and when you do move into that hosted environment, whether it's a multi-tenant or a multi-instance virtualized architecture, we scale incredibly well, and we distribute across the cloud architecture because we grew up in this space. We didn't come out of a compute application platform and try to figure out how to do communications. So those are the things that I'm really excited about. So if folks start to model the 5000, 7000 up and it ends up being in virtualized, I think, it'll be basically the same revenue, basically the same margin, and even more strategic value. And if not, we'll just report out probably better numbers on 5000, 7000. But the fourth quarter year-over-year is just a matter of it having been particularly strong last year fourth quarter, and not as big of an impact in this fourth quarter. I don't consider it a major data point yet.

Thanks, guys.

Thank you, Jess.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Silverstein with Cowen. Please go ahead. Paul Silverstein - Cowen & Co. LLC: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. A couple of questions, if I may. First off, Ray, the deals you referenced with Taqua down in Mexico, the other deal in South Africa, can you give us a sense for how large those deals are in trying to project out further beyond that? And then I've got a margin question.

Yeah, Paul. Sure. Thanks for the question. You can think of them as in the ballpark of $1 million, starter deals. They could scale very quickly from there because most of these companies are multinational pan-American kind of companies, and pan-Africa kind of companies. So I'd say material, software centric, and could become a beachhead, but at the same time, if all it is is a beachhead, it'll be a one and done. I don't believe that's the case, but I just want to be transparent with you. Paul Silverstein - Cowen & Co. LLC: I appreciate that. And then on margins, do you all have visibility as to what peak gross margins – how much better they can get? You all did a nice job, but how much more room is there? And then I want to ask a larger question.

Sure. The gross margin progress we've made from, say, mid-50%s to 70% has been strenuous. You could say the early days were low-hanging fruit, the later days were just a lot of hard work. Where can they go from here? It probably has another 500 basis points to run as we evolve this software. I'm just giving you a ballpark. That certainly would be my own internal goal over a multiyear period. But things that make that challenging are if our revenue levels stay sub $60 million. Our manufacturing volumes, and things like that, and overhead costs are just going to make that difficult. Once we start getting into the $75 million plus quarters, which we tend to have in the second half, obviously it's a little bumpy, but I'm just using two general numbers. It'll be easier for us to climb into the 70%s. As attaches for licenses from prior chassis and as more things are sold virtualized, I don't see any reason we can't get there. I'd be reluctant to claim getting beyond that, towards 80%, Paul, because I just don't think too many industries exist at more than 75% gross margins. Paul Silverstein - Cowen & Co. LLC: Okay. And then bigger picture, Ray, relative to your strategic vision – and I appreciate that you're not expecting the revenue dispute, but in terms of where the company is in realizing this transformation that you discussed this morning, is it even at the RFP stage, or is it even earlier than that in terms of your conversations? Can you give us some sense on where the market is at? Are you seeing an increasing volume of significant RFPs or, again, is it even earlier than that?

So I am personally now, Paul, in strategic discussions with far more senior executives. I would call it the top of the house, certainly from technology point of view. In some cases, it goes beyond that, all the way to CEO levels. The industry has been consolidating. They're almost running out of consolidation opportunity for the leverage of synergies and they need to move into cloud. And there's this great debate. I would say most people believe they're not going to make it. I don't know if folks on this call would agree, but there's a tremendous amount of skepticism that in the presence of Amazon, everyone doesn't just die. And yet I will tell you that players like Amazon, who I meet with at very senior levels, realize that they need to move from a stateless to a stateful cloud. And if they don't move to stateful, what they'll do is they will at least move to a more open architecture that – in an SDN world you could almost argue whether state matters because there's no network until it's requested. Once it's requested, it's managed for as long as it's up and then it's torn down. So this third network notion, which is actually a term commonly used by most folks, it's growing up in the MEF if you haven't heard much about it. I actually believe it's imminent. But remember, I said in my prepared comments, often it is like you don't see it, you don't see it, and then it happened overnight. Think when the iPhone came out. Prior to that, people were thinking the Razr was an end game. Okay. It just didn't make sense that someone was going to have the balls to mobilize the entire Internet and someone did. What I'm saying to…

Thank you. Our next question -

Do you have a follow-on? Okay, Paul, did you have a follow-on question or was that it? I didn't know if you had any more. Okay. Paul Silverstein - Cowen & Co. LLC: Ray, sorry, I've muted myself. To be fair to others, I'll pass it on. I'll take the rest offline. Thank you.

Okay. Talk to you soon. Operator, next question.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Greg Mesniaeff with Drexel Hamilton. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Hi, Ray. Question on some of your commentary regarding the transition to a virtualized environment and SDN. As that continues to evolve, how do you envision your sales and marketing strategy changing with that trend? I mean, do you see yourself increasingly dependent on partnerships with the major, large – I guess, what used to be called equipment vendors? Or do you see a more go it alone direct sales strategy to provide your products in a more discrete à la carte kind of way? Thanks.

Sure, Greg. So in a hardware instance where we're at right now, 5000, 7000, and to a certain extent, some folks just keep loving the heck out of our 9000 SBC, we are largely independent. Most of those applications can be run independently, especially the interconnect side and the peering side. So we're fine. In the VoLTE environment that we're in with this large customer and the ones that I think will be derived off of that, we're largely independent of other players. We were in a bake-off for a year versus all of the major players. We won that bake-off. There was a secondary bake-off that added another nine months. Actually, that's what's probably going to keep us on track, because so much work was done there that we'll be fine. And that's not going to be a dependency, even though, to be honest with you, that's all purely virtualized software. So I don't think it really changes our dependency one way or another. We could become an application on a next gen firewall and shift our distribution into the enterprise as, if you will, a skew on somebody else's as a service model. That would work. We're also in advanced stages in the Domain 2.0 program on the virtual CPE side, where we could easily be a client in a white box if in fact it stays on-prem or moves into a multi-tenant hosted model. We're doing a ton of work there. In fact, our small 1000, 2000 that led to the low instance, low density, virtualized SBC, we've actually done a ton of work there. We now launched a product called SWe Lite, which is the software edition lite. And actually, we didn't lighten up the session density, we just lightened up the memory requirements and the power requirements and the footprint so that it would fit in a very, very inexpensive edge device if the telcos wanted to put that on-prem in their strategy. And the same thing for Lync. That may or may not be their strategy. If it is, we'll be part of somebody else's distribution. In that case, it'd probably be the telco. So we'll just see where it goes, but we've got the agility to go either way. Certainly, we're not going to go over the top of the telco and sell direct to the enterprise. We do that for large banks that have like a one-year sales cycle to figure out how it impacts their entire IT architecture. But even after that year, we stand back and get behind one of the large telcos as a system integrator.

Greg...

Enterprise...

Go ahead, Greg.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You guys indicated earlier on the call that enterprise revenues were less than 20%, I think you said 19% of total. Do you kind of see that number being steady going forward?

Yes, it's been fairly steady, and I would call anything from 18% to 22% steady, Greg, because as our revenue has volatility in it, you get 100 basis points of shift just based on the numerator and the denominator. Our enterprise business is steady. We are starting to see some good uptake in the Skype for Business Lync environment, as I said, because Microsoft is now getting, I think, more focused on what they call CCE, or Cloud Connected Edition. When you think of their use of the word edition, it's kind of like they think of an enterprise edition for the old Windows environment. That discussion is changing very rapidly towards a hosted model. I think that's end game for all of the major players in the cloud, is to move into a hosted model. And when we do, whether we call that enterprise or we call that cloud as a new category, it'll be mostly for players like Microsoft, and probably in partnership with some of the telcos, and maybe even partnership with a company in the cloud like an Equinix, who services the telcos in hundreds of data centers around the world. This is going to be a very collaborative effort. And we'll just share with you where we are, and if we change categories from enterprise search provider to cloud sometime next year, we'll be transparent about that as well. But we're just going to follow the puck, and I think we'll actually be very strategic to some of those players as they evolve their strategy. Everything is moving up the stack. People that used to interconnect at Layer 2 realized they're going to be left behind if they don't move up. Everything is about API-based communications, not just in the cloud, but even in telcos. And we've made some very major progress there. There'll be some announcements forthcoming about us having some brands around API based communication. We've launched two brands recently that we're launching discretely but we'll make more noise about it in the next few months. One is called Vigil (00:45:31), which is basically a network platform which has massive analytics engine attached to it, and the other is called TRAPiEaze (00:45:36), with the middle letter being an I because it's an API-oriented architecture. And we're going to start to use the term digital services broker when we move up the stack. I mean, think about it: even though people think of us as voice and SIP, SIP is an API. Everything we have done at Sonus since the day we were born has been API-based and above Layer 3. So as the world moves to API-based communication, which is what every hyperscale player wants to talk about, and they believe the last remaining network element that gets in the way of hyper-elasticity is the firewall, and yet they have to address security. I really like our odds of being able to contribute to that meal, if you will, as it revolves.

Thanks, Ray.

Thank you, Greg.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Mike Latimore with Northland Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi, great. Thanks a lot. On this new Tier 1 wireless win, just specifically which products are you going to be selling into that project?

You think of it as our virtualized large SBC. It's a massive scale, Mike. It's focused now on the interconnect side of VoLTE, which is a massive opportunity, and as other players around the world move more to VoLTE, and they're starting to do that, that's where we're at. There's a very good shot that we'll move beyond interconnect. I just don't want to overhang the market with that opportunity yet. But as we move beyond interconnect into access and transform, if you will, the way mobile networks work. Again, we'll say more about this at Mobile World Congress, but there is a huge opportunity for us. Where we sit in the core of a VoLTE network from an SBC point of view, a lot of traffic gets rejected in the depths of the virtual mobile core and the IMS architecture, which could easily have been done at the edge, if there was a way for that SBC that blocks traffic to collaborate with the network element at the edge. So expect that we'll be re-architecturing more of the mobile network architecture, and we may be able to show off either ourselves or in collaboration with another player in the industry to talk about how we can re-architect that.

Got it, yeah. I mean, so you're replacing an incumbent. I assume you're replacing kind of the traditional hardware based SBC there?

Correct.

Okay. And did Taqua help here at all? And also, are you selling any of your diameter products there?

Taqua didn't help at all. This has been going on for two years. Taqua was acquired, we started to do more business with Taqua in the summer last year, which lead to the acquisition. No, this is not a signaling play at this point in time, but it definitely will evolve in that direction.

Okay. Got it. And then just on the product mix, you called out sort of $12.5 million from the two SBC categories, but I guess in terms of just the products overall, was media gateway less than half of product revenue?

Susan, do you have that number? I'm pretty sure it was.

Yes, it was.

Yeah, the media gateway GSX 9000 was less than that. And it could come in, there's a little bumps along the way, but the majority of our customers are now talking to us, not even just about SBCs, about architecture. Because, again, when I joined the company, we were a gateway company that literally missed the turn to SBCs, and there was a lot of discussion, why don't you just spinoff your old gateway business and become a pure play? This was when we had a market comp in Acme. We didn't just move to SBCs to be an SBC company because that sun was going to set before we even got to the horizon. We set about being an SBC company so that it could have the opportunity to virtualize that and participate in an evolved architecture. We weren't a 100% sure that the architecture would evolve the way it did, so we thought we had good odds since we grew up above the stack and in the application layer. So now we actually don't talk – we'll report to you. I don't want to suggest that we're going to go opaque with you regarding gateway revenues and SBC revenues. We'll be as transparent as we can. But we're really selling an architecture right now. That's why I'm comfortable guiding to flat to modest growth with the back end load, and telling you where our cash flow is going to come from. I mean, think about it, we've got a solid balance sheet, solid cash flow, but here's the real asset: deeply embedded in these telcos, trusted to run their massive voice networks, knowing that running voice networks will eventually run the evolved architecture, and we're first to being virtualized. When we complete this other project, we already have a reference account, but we will then have a reference account with a gold label on it, saying we can lead the world into a virtualized, cloudified architecture. That's the principle reason that I spent so much time on strategy today. But I also want to point out, I think we posted some pretty good numbers in the fourth quarter, and I believe we'll post some pretty good numbers next year, albeit we'll be back-end loaded.

Got it. And then just last question, do you think your services revenue would be stable or growing this year?

It'll be stable. I doubt it'll be growing. We describe services, Mike, as both maintenance and services. We're starting to evolve beyond the complexity of the initial installs, so our PS is probably flat, maybe a little bit down quarter-to-quarter, but overall for the year, probably flat. Our maintenance for the old stuff is declining probably about 5% as people either decommission or we offer them price breaks for multiyear extensions. The maintenance attached on the new stuff is just enough to keep that flat, and eventually we'll completely mitigate the risk of follow-up on the maintenance side within a year or two. So I would think of our services number as basically flat. If it's down, it's down low-single digits.

Sure. Okay, thanks.

Sure.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Dmitry Netis with William Blair. Please go ahead. Dmitry G. Netis - William Blair & Co. LLC: Okay. Thank you very much, guys, for squeezing me in. A couple of questions. I guess, I enjoyed the strategic framework. I just wanted to follow up on that. Ray, I'm sure you'd love to talk more about it. But one thing I caught in what you said was that you're moving to GPU transcoding. So I'm trying to appreciate a little bit more what that really means, and why would you shift from – I don't know if it was FPGA based in prior lives to now GPU or CPU based transcoding? And what does it do? How does that differentiate you competitively? Do you expect – I'd imagine that the rest of the peers will follow that model if this is what's dictated by the customers. Does it help the margin? What does it do, essentially, that that's what a model with GPU in it?

Sure, happy to talk about it, Dmitry, and this gets a little wonky, so I'll keep it short, and I'm happy to follow up with you when we see you over at Mobile World Congress. Okay, we didn't start in FPGAs, although, maybe it was developed very early on. We commercialized around a DSP. That's where the world was around at the turn of the century. TI owned the category. There were others, and we were standardized around the TI DSP. The difference is we didn't just buy libraries from TI, we built our own DSP code, and we've hardened that code over 15 years. So we really owned transcoding which was massively strategic to voice. Now, there's a debate as to how important that is for video because a lot of times if you're called to a video call, you basically click on a client, and you're in an island, if you will, of video connectivity, and everybody is running the same protocols, and there's no transcoding. The odds are that's going to evolve, especially in virtual reality and things like that. But so if you just think about where we were, DSPs evolved to CPUs. We went from committed silicon to run the special purpose of transcoding to like – look, if everybody is going to use Moore's Law, let's get this ported to CPUs. We did that. Many others in the industry did that. But we did it by optimizing our existing code. Others did it by optimizing libraries. So we've always had an advantage. I'd call it a significant advantage, but it was a technology advantage that most people in the market didn't understand, but our customers did. It definitely drove economics, but on the margin. When you move to the cloud, the cloud is –…

So that's why it's important. I'll probably stop there, if you don't mind, Dmitry, because rest of the audience may or may not care much about this. But it's a big deal for us and it's a credibility issue that we really, truly get the corner cases, if you will, that at the end of the day, are going to drive the economics of cloud. Dmitry G. Netis - William Blair & Co. LLC: Very helpful. Very helpful. And when do you expect the cloud guys to sort of jump on this bandwagon? Are we still sort of in development phase, in R&D discussion phase throughout the year or could this really come in as a 2017 opportunity? And as you talk to that, can you also mention whether the launch of the security product you've been talking about for several quarters now is expected this year or is that more of a 2018 event?

So for 2017, yeah, I've laid out the framework that I see happening. I don't expect anything strategically to change that trajectory. I'll be very pleased if it does. But I'm going to spend most of our time talking about what Jess pointed out earlier, which is managing the risk in the large projects, so that it doesn't like shift into Q1 and blow up our second half. I don't believe, by the way, by pointing to that that that's an issue, but I just wanted you to know what I'm going to be focused on. The issue here is about 2018 and beyond, okay, Dmitry? And when are the cloud guys going to engage? They are now. We're having meetings right now with service providers and cloud players at Mobile World Congress, okay? So the engagement has begun. When will it impact our results? I just don't know. It always looks like it happens overnight, but it never happens until it happens. So, most of them know that they need to move from stateless to stateful. But frankly, they're growing 50% year-over-year. Why do you need to change, right? The firewall guys know they have to move from a bump in the wire that blacklist behavior and stops things to a whitelist behavior that creates things. But frankly, that runs at a completely different clock than a firewall and they're making so much money in San Francisco at RSA right now that nobody is paying attention, okay? But everybody knows this is where the world is going, everybody. So when does it change? We'll keep you posted. But I'm very excited about our leverage, because this is a company that has not had a lot of leverage for the last 10 years and now has a substantial shot at the leverage it had at its early days and we're going to stay focused on that. Dmitry G. Netis - William Blair & Co. LLC: Okay. Last question, or two in one, if you will. Just a clarification on Taqua. Are you going to tell us what the expectation there is for Taqua in 2017? I don't know if you're going to break this out or not, but it would be interesting to know what you expect in terms of revenue or growth from that unit. And also, as you look at the Skype for Business, do you think there's any tailwind from Skype for Business? I know one of the competitors had noticed some flattening of growth this year and maybe re-acceleration in 2018 timeframe. I wonder if you're seeing the same thing or are you seeing something different in potentially sort of aligning yourself closer to this Cloud Edition product, hosted cloud that Microsoft is putting out on the market?

Okay. So two questions in one, Dmitry. So Taqua, no, we're not going to break it out. But I'll just give you a ballpark and I'll frankly just ignore future questions, if you don't mind, because we're not going to break it out. You can think of it as just modestly sub $10 million contribution. I'd be thrilled if it was twice that, but I just can't trust some of the long opportunities in there to score them into our plan and then miss our plan because of a long sales cycle. So I would point to Taqua more as a strategic contributor than a financial contributor right now, and I'll just leave it at that, okay? But I do believe that the cost adjustments that we've been able to make will allow it to be breakeven to accretive in 2017. Going forward, we don't plan to comment on Taqua as a standalone company. Second, Skype for Business, yeah, I called it flat in our 2017 outlook. We're just carrying it flat going forward, because I hope that's conservative. But I have been disappointed by Microsoft and Lync before because this has been a strategic imperative, pound the table kind of imperative that we're going to go to cloud, only to find out that you're caught up in discussions as to whether or not to be a regulated CLEC, and blah, blah, blah. But now the discussions are getting much more strategic. Some of our biggest enterprise customers that are thinking about going Skype for Business are literally telling them, look, we want to use the Sonus PSX and their virtualized instance into a hosted environment and we have just shifted our discussions to a place that's very, very favorable to us. Nobody else – the other company that you referred to, totally irrelevant in that space. No way can they scale and distribute across the cloud the way we can. So I'm just not – I'd just ignore that as a data point, whether they're seeing an uplift or a down-lift in a market that's going to shift completely in the next 24 months to a hosted environment. Okay? Dmitry G. Netis - William Blair & Co. LLC: Sounds good. Thanks for taking all my questions. Good luck.

Thank you, Dmitry.

Thank you. Our last question comes from the line of Steven Cohen with Provo (01:01:07). Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning, Ray. Concerning the strategic vision that you guys spoke about, I'm trying to understand the timeframe around that, vis-à-vis generating revenue growth. You talked about this deal in Mexico having 18-month, two-year get ready before it actually is going to score into revenue. Is that your expectation as far as this strategy plays out? In other words, revenue from the implementation of that strategy is more likely to be a post-2018 event?

Steve (01:01:45), are you talking about Latin America and South Africa?

As an example of the...

No, those will be 2017. They'll be just be modest. Those don't have a long-term effect.

No, no, I got it. No. What I meant is...

The multi-year one I referred to is – go ahead.

I meant the strategy that you enunciated as far as everything shifting to the cloud, et cetera, and is that a long get-ready time? So in other words, once the customer decides that they're moving in that direction, it's still going to be several years before you're going to score it as revenue? Or is it therefore, even if they start late 2017 thinking about that, it's going to be well beyond 2018 before you see the revenue effect?

Yeah. Steve (01:02:28), I'm not calling revenue effect from this in any calendar year. What I'm trying to separate out is the fact that I think we can be very healthy and are a very healthy flat revenue company with solid gross margins, generating cash with a solid balance sheet. And then we have an option to create a new industry. I believe that new industry is imminent. I believe its revenue models are in flux. So I literally can't answer your question. If we end up askew inside a next gen firewall, we could score things as early as 2018. That's relatively trivial. But what it actually does is it stresses the firewall to become part of a network that moves at a clock speed that they can't tolerate. So it goes back into a long R&D cycle then it pushes it out further. Either one those outcomes would land us in a massively strategic leverage position for a decade. So what I'm trying to separate out is that Sonus is simultaneously an operating company that generates cash, and an option for the future. And what I'm trying to articulate is that option. If you're trying to model it, I understand that, but I haven't gotten to that level of clarification yet, okay? So all of the numbers that I've given you have literally nothing in it for that optionality. And you're welcome to discount that to zero, or you're welcome to put 1999 bubble levels on it. That's your call. But that's the company that we're running, and that's the company that folks are covering.

Thanks.

Okay? Thank you.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time.

Okay. Thank you very much, everyone, and I know the market is open, everybody is probably either gone or leaving. Thanks for your time today, and I look forward to seeing many of you over the next few weeks. Have a good day.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation, and ask that you please disconnect your line.