& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 12   >   >>
jepovic
50%
50%
jepovic,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:15 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
There are two types of MSE. Either you get an advanced router (as Juniper), with very little extra functionality above the normal router platform. Or you get the BRAS, like the ERX, with lots of per-user stuff, but with limited throughput. Either way, you have to pay lots extra.

Basically, the problem with the MSEs is that you can 95% of the interesting functionality in regular routers, at 50% of the price.
paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:25:14 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints

I think the old cap and grow model is gone.

The new cap and grow is going to be done by the new network replacing the old. This new network does not require an MSE. I think this results from carriers calculating the cost of replacing the old network and determining that this is too much money.

The other thing I love is that gaming is brought up as an application all the time. Do any of these people game on-line? Apparently not. They should try Everquest or Counterstrike online before they make commentary that gamers will pay for QoS.

seven
arch_1
50%
50%
arch_1,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:12 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
This was completely predictable, and predicted.

Legacy networks (i.e., anything except the Internet) and legacy protocols (i.e., anything except IP) are a shrinking market. The only reason customers continue to use them is inertia. The instant you make a change to an operational network that requires any action whatsoever by the customer, the custoemr will re-evaluate the protocol and/or network, and will most likely switch to Internet/IP.

So, The MSE solves a non-problem.

The one current exception to all-IP is cellular telephony, but even this traffic will begin to shift to IP as WIFI-enabled cell phones become available.

NOTE: shrinking legacy revenues do not necessarily imply shrinking legacy networks, at least initially. But it will happen. The last host was removed from the SPRINT X.25 network in January 2005.
DZED
50%
50%
DZED,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:10 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
It seems everything is migrating to IP, voice, TV, data, anything else?

Has anyone considered the disadvantages? Are there any? I would have thought a server targeted virus attack could have some nasty consequences.

Non-IP systems are at least overload tolerant, and fairly robust, if the system is overloaded it continues to function but not everyone can get through at once.

I assume an IP based system would simply grind to a halt so everyones data gets delayed/garbled ie no-one can use it.
OldPOTS
50%
50%
OldPOTS,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:10 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
I think we have a definition question!?

OldPOTS
rjmcmahon
50%
50%
rjmcmahon,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:10 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
Legacy networks (i.e., anything except the Internet) and legacy protocols (i.e., anything except IP) are a shrinking market. The only reason customers continue to use them is inertia. The instant you make a change to an operational network that requires any action whatsoever by the customer, the custoemr will re-evaluate the protocol and/or network, and will most likely switch to Internet/IP.

So, The MSE solves a non-problem.


I'm confused. My understanding from the article is that the MSE would be used to transition legacy networks over to a modern core network. Does the disappointment in the MSE market imply that people aren't transitioning but are living with the legacy cores? Or is this a misinterpretation?
bobcat
50%
50%
bobcat,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:09 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
MSE devices were a patch fix to fill some gaps in the Service Provider market offerings while they tried to figure out what they needed to make earnings and, how their current networks could morph into future services. To build a new network with multiservice edge devices or not? Obviously NOT. Basically it is a wait and see if wireless would take off or not.

In other words even if you need MSE devices, to what degree? and geographically positioned where? and what will be the pay off to the expense? Will they really be needed in the next five to ten years?

Do you really need them (MSE)if you build a new network, assuming you already know the short commings of your existing networks.? What will be the future services that will return a profit as you grow with the least amount of expenditure and build out?

Where do the wi-fi access networks fit in? and, Cable company services competition do you really want to go head to head with cable services and offerings and how? It better be cheaper than the cable offerings. I think wireless backhaul upgrades is probably a better integration of MSEs given profit is still the word of the day. That too will be short lived. So why not forgetaboutit.

jepovic
50%
50%
jepovic,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:09 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
Legacy networks (i.e., anything except the Internet) and legacy protocols (i.e., anything except IP) are a shrinking market. The only reason customers continue to use them is inertia. The instant you make a change to an operational network that requires any action whatsoever by the customer, the custoemr will re-evaluate the protocol and/or network, and will most likely switch to Internet/IP.

So, The MSE solves a non-problem.

I'm confused. My understanding from the article is that the MSE would be used to transition legacy networks over to a modern core network. Does the disappointment in the MSE market imply that people aren't transitioning but are living with the legacy cores? Or is this a misinterpretation?

************************************

That was the idea, but operators prefer to let their legacy networks slowly shrink and die, rather than making a messy migration to an MSE-based network. A migration to MSE will affect product specs, if only slightly, it will definitely affect IT systems, and it will affect customers. It's just not worth it, even if it's technically possible.
paolo.franzoi
50%
50%
paolo.franzoi,
User Rank: Light Sabre
12/5/2012 | 3:25:08 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints

I think service delivery over IP is mixed up with service delivery over the Public Internet.

The public Internet will remain a best effort environment. Attempts to change it will deal with such complexity it will be impossible. In many ways, a victim of its own success.

The move will be to private IP networks that connect subscribers to premium services. These services will be delivered and charged for. Will people pay for video because it is over IP? No. Will they pay for video delivery to their TV? Yes, there is clear evidence of that.

This is a rather dramatic technological shift that is occuring and will not be bumpless. There are lots of issues to be resolved, but the tectonic plates of network architecture are moving. I think what has caused this shift is two things:

1 - Dramatic increases in the bandwidth per subscriber and;
2 - Aggresive competition for bread and butter services.

10 years from now (to pick a long time away) does anybody believe that the revenue and cost structures that we have today in a service provider are even a choice? Typical large carrier migrations are a thing of the past. They simply cost too much and take too long.

seven
bobcat
50%
50%
bobcat,
User Rank: Light Beer
12/5/2012 | 3:25:08 AM
re: Multiservice Edge Market Disappoints
>>It seems everything is migrating to IP, voice, TV, data, anything else?

That remains to be seen. After all, what are you willing to pay for?

>>Has anyone considered the disadvantages? Are there any? I would have thought a server targeted virus attack could have some nasty consequences.

Hmmmm. Cost is always a disadvantage not just purchase of equipment, but also billing application issues and man power associated with maintence and marketing/sales and tech support.
Virus attacks and hackers are a cost expense and constant irritation also.
Virus attacks are a part of doing IP buisness now. Already factored in.

>>Non-IP systems are at least overload tolerant, and fairly robust, if the system is overloaded it continues to function but not everyone can get through at once.

Over simplified but I get the point and, agree to an extent but IP QOS and Diff-Serv etc., not to mention routing protocols like OSPF and others provide the same reliability. No?

>>I assume an IP based system would simply grind to a halt so everyones data gets delayed/garbled ie no-one can use it.

Wrong assumption. There are QOS guarentees in IP and transport for IP can still be offered over a variety of transport services such as ATM, PPP over sonet, or RPR all of which support APS (automatic protection switching) in various flavors.
Vo-IP is starting to get some real attention by carriers after years of delay. Cable networks are interested in offering IP services over copper and, fiber.
Page 1 / 12   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas
October 1-2, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events