& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 6 / 31   >   >>
Mezo
Mezo
12/5/2012 | 1:54:11 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
stephenpcookie,

I think Tony said 'new builds'...not 're-builds'...I'll add that the maintenance cost and failures (lost customers & billable time) of old gear often make a significant difference in operational cost...uh oh my GSR just brought down NY...but we all know there are plenty of folks like yourself that feel smarter by challenging Tony or picking on startups...your right and you do know better...now have a nicer day :]
stephenpcooke
stephenpcooke
12/5/2012 | 1:54:11 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Well Mezo, you seem to have judged me without even saying hello let alone walking a mile in my shoes.

I guess that you have missed several of my posts where I have admitted my lack of genius-ness. I have never met, let alone worked with Tony so I have no opinion on his capabilities one way or another. I would have responded the same way if you had written his response and I have no idea who you are either. Perhaps you are trying to win points by defending Tony, though I'm sure that he can do that on his own. Regarding startups, I can only testify to what I have seen personally when I consulted with several startups, some of which are now dead (to quote Dr. McCoy, 'Sorry Jim, I just couldn't save them'). Now here is the rub, I really don't know any better, that is why I post what I do.

I will try to have a nice day though, thank you.
Flower
Flower
12/5/2012 | 1:54:10 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
technonerd wrote:

Anyone who says this is not a typical consumer. To a typical consumer, phones are for talking and e-mail is for writing.

Sure. But don't forget this: 5 years ago nobody had broadband Internet access, not even geeks. 10 years ago, nobody had a GSM phone, now everyone does. 15 years ago, the Internet was just for geeks. Nowadays, *everybody* uses these technologies. My parents are 65 years old, they install their own hardware, software, my dad even installed and configured his adsl- and his his wifi router. People accept new technology quicker than you might think.

voice is a real-time, full-duplex service that demands much more capability from the service provider.

Sure. But that doesn't mean you can't do it over the Internet. I used to play online games, with very high demands about delay and packetloss. Increases increases in delay and packetloss will be noticable immediately. When you play those games, it becomes apparent that some ISPs have crappy networks, and some have very good networks. I have no doubt my current ISP has enough bandwidth and transit/peering to give me good connectivity to most places in Europe.

These are all regulatory artifacts. They have nothing to do with the underlying technology.

Agreed.
Regulatory, marketing, there are many non-technical reasons why phone tariffs are as they are. That's why I would like to escape the whole world of POTS, and start over again. IMHO the price of long-distance connections does not justify the higher prices for long-distance or international calls. I guess that all voice conversations in my country would fit over a single 10Gig Ethernet cable .....

You don't want to pay for anything. Neither do I. But that's not how things work. One way or the other, people are going to pay for telecom.

I don't agree. I don't like paying too much for stuff, but I don't mind reasonable prices for something I want. Paying 30 euros/dollars per month for always-on broadband Internet, with unlimited local, long-distance and international voice service sounds good to me. And I just don't see why this can't be done.

I understand why gas and oil costs money. I understand why houses cost money. I understand that scarceness increases cost. I understand that some things (like gas) need to be made expensive, because otherwise the environment will be hurt, or other people will be bothered. However, communication (data or voice) has no bad impact on society. Once telecom equipment is installed and paid for, there is no reason why people shouldn't make full use of the available bandwidth. No people will be hurt, the environment will not suffer.

I have always had the impression that it was the life-goal of bellheads to prevent people from using telecommuncations as much as possible (by asking money for every bit transmitted), while netheads tried to encourage everybody to use telecommunications as much as possible.

The fact that VoIP isn't billed that way now doesn't mean it can't be billed that way in the future.

You scare me. I would like to see exactly the opposite. I want people to pay a flat fee for a pipe that gives access to a world-wide network. I want to get rid of any metered telecommunications.

led too many naive consumers to believe that "the Internet" will make telecom services "free."

It won't be free. But it should get cheaper and cheaper, with any services the consumers can think of. Without any extra costs for extra "services".

In my country, GSM is very popular. And SMS is even more popular, esp with younger kids. One SMS message costs 10-25 eurocents. IMNSHO that is pure theft. Charging 10 eurocents for a message less than a KB. This is what happens when you let telcos decide what services should be available, and what the costs are. All I want is a bitpipe.

Propellerheads just hate it, because it forces them to actually make shit that works if they hope to sell it.

What do you mean "force them to make shit that works" ? My stuff works. The fact that we are discussing here over the Internet is enough proof that the Internet works. It might not be "five-nines" yet. But I've always thought that number was a load of BS anyway. Someone in this thread mentioned SNA. SNA was supposed to be the real stuff, predictable, reliable, blah blah. Banks, airports, all those "real" networks would never use "geek toys" like IP, and would always stick with SNA. Well, in the early nineties already, cisco sold a lot of CIP cards, which allowed customers to get rid of their expensive FEPs and expensive SNA clouds. Loads and loads of "mission critical" SNA traffic was in fact carried over IP clouds. Later IBM started pushing native IP on their mainframes and AS400s. Please tell us again that IP isn't good enough for anything but "geek applications" ......

There is growing demand for QoS and availability

Agreed. There is no reason why IP can't give the same availability. Routing protocols can reroute inside an AS within a second. I can't say much about failures inside a system, but I can't see why the same fault-tolerance technologies used in circuitswitches can't be used inside packetswitches.

As for VoIP, it offers no benefit in return for lower QoS and availability.

VoIP offers me an espace from the claws of telcos and RBOCs. It allows me flatfee worldwide communication, and a free choice to pick my own applications, services, devices and software.

Look, only 20% of the population has broadband. .... Sorry, but VoIP is a geek toy and a regulatory play.

10 years ago, nobody outside my geek friends knew what email was. When I talked about the Internet, everybody thought I was out of my mind. Nowadays 90% of kids between 9 and 15 years old has broadband at home. 100% of Norwegian kids between 16 and 24 has their own cellphone. What you consider a "geek toy" can be mainstream within just a few years.


sigint
sigint
12/5/2012 | 1:54:10 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Folks,

If you were asked to draw up specifications for a router which does voice and also does data, rather than the other way round, what would they be?

Thanks,
Sigint
(PS: I'd welcome comments even from folks that do not beleive VoIP has any future.)
Tony Li
Tony Li
12/5/2012 | 1:54:08 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks


Since this is a predictive statement, I can not argue against this. But I would like to know why. Is it because, those services can not be supported in the TDM environment? If so, can you give an example of such services?
----------

Simply because it is cheaper. Look at the cost per bit of TDM gear vs. packet gear.

Tony
Tony Li
Tony Li
12/5/2012 | 1:54:07 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Re: Message 49

Technonerd,

Sure, there may be a finite amount of surplus right now on the voice side of things, but that cannot last forever. What happens when it is consumed? Do you spend more on expanding your 5E? Devoting more trunks to TDM?

IP is perfectly satisfactory for call quality. It far exceeds what people find acceptable on a cell phone, so please, drop this argument that it's not good enough. I use it daily and it Just Plain Works.

As to the economics, they are very clear: I pay X dollars a month for broadband access. I pay Y dollars a month for telephony. X + Y > X. If I can reduce Y, then I 'win'. Ergo, I make VoIP calls when possible. Now you can argue that I'm the uber-geek who is an exception, but when the enterprise picks up on this so that they can optimise their LD bill, you can bet that it's going to become a common bit of gear.

Tony
dljvjbsl
dljvjbsl
12/5/2012 | 1:54:07 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Most of the equipment [TDM] has long since been paid for. It wouldn't make sense to yank it out. There are no cost advantages to IP; quite the contrary, in fact

How then do technological change outs occur. There was a massive change out in the 70s and 80s with the advent of digital systems. Digital trunking had been practical since the 60s with the advent of the digital class 5 in the 70s, the entire network rapidly went digital.

The telecom trunking backbone is now being converted to IP/MPLS. The class 5 has become a massive set handler since the trunk side will consist of only a few IP trunks. The line side is moving towards the extensive use of remotes with high bandwidth connections to the class 5.

The digital class 5 service architecture is now obsolete.

Transmission is moving towards a media gateway design and control is moving towards media gateay controller (surprise) design.

The most efficient way for this to be done is to have an IP system all of the way.

Hence a technological change out in the same way that was done 30 years ago and 10 years before that and 20 years before that and 30 years before that.

I am sure that when the SxS switches were being repalced by the first of the Xbars there were the same arguments about sytems being paid for.

Change happens

Tony Li
Tony Li
12/5/2012 | 1:54:06 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks

Re: Message 50

Stephen,

First, the operating revenues are going to fall, no matter what technology is going to be used to provide the service. This is the result of competition and new technology. LD is now ~$0.05/min just due to pricing pressures, and it doesn't matter if you're using TDM, packets, or string.

Second, working, revenue-generating, paid-for equipment is not free. There's maintenance contracts, power, space, etc. At some point, the power bill on your 5E exceeds the profits that you make from it. Then what do you do? I grant you that this might not be right away and I'm not suggesting that this would happen immediately.

Third, again, the business case is about cost. Pre-deregulation, it didn't matter, but now we have the ability to deliver the voice minute for less, and some customers are drawn to it. And even if you don't believe, if you're competition deploys gear that truly gives them a lower cost structure, they will eat your lunch.

We have a saying in the Valley: you can eat your children for lunch, or someone else can. New technology inevitably drives new price points, which in turn creates more competition. Ain't capitalism grand?

Tony
technonerd
technonerd
12/5/2012 | 1:54:05 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
People accept new technology quicker than you might think.
People take up new technologies when there is an advantage in doing so. VoIP delivers no advantages.


But that doesn't mean you can't do it over the Internet.
IP is just a way of formatting packets to be transported over a network. "The Internet" means that packets go through routers rather than switches, but they traverse the same network used by the PSTN.

So we're not talking about which network, we're talking about how to format the packets and which devices to send them through. Can you encapsulate voice in IP? Sure. Can you route it rather than switch it? Yup. It is cheaper to do this? Nope? Is the service better or more reliable? Nope, other way around.

Oh, and ISP don't have networks. They just have on-ramps to the network.


IMHO the price of long-distance connections does not justify the higher prices for long-distance or international calls.
I agree with you. To the exent that encapsulating voice in IP for the overseas or international hop reduces calling charges, I'm in favor for it. But that's a far cry from "VoIP" as it's presented by the propellerheads.


Paying 30 euros/dollars per month for always-on broadband Internet, with unlimited local, long-distance and international voice service sounds good to me. And I just don't see why this can't be done.
We can't do it because there's no meaningful telecom competition. And there's no meaningful competition because, during the Bubble, the money raised to start new competitors was wasted on technology that didn't work and business plans that made no sense.

Now, the only telcos left standing are the RBOCs and the cable companies, which is a bit like having your choice between Iran and Iraq. It didn't have to be that way, but that's what rampant California techno-fraud will do.


I have always had the impression that it was the life-goal of bellheads to prevent people from using telecommuncations as much as possible (by asking money for every bit transmitted), while netheads tried to encourage everybody to use telecommunications as much as possible.
It was the goal of Bellheads to protect high T-1 rates at all costs. It was the goal of data geeks to launch hot IPOs. Both of these goals have been fulfilled.


I want to get rid of any metered telecommunications.
I'm going to make an assumption here, which might be incorrect. I'm going to assume that you are too young to remember when kids were told in school that nuclear power would produce electricity in such abundant quantities that it would be too cheap to meter.

I believed it, but I have a defense: I was in grade school. I believed in Santa Claus, too.


This is what happens when you let telcos decide what services should be available, and what the costs are. All I want is a bitpipe.
Your governments over there collected $100 billion for "3G" spectrum in the late 1990s. One way or another, the telcos have to get that money back. Sorry, but there's no free lunch kiddo.


What do you mean "force them to make shit that works" ? My stuff works. The fact that we are discussing here over the Internet is enough proof that the Internet works.
It works well enough for tolerable, best-efforts packet delivery. That's a far cry from how well it has to work for full-duplex, real-time packet delivery.


I can't say much about failures inside a system, but I can't see why the same fault-tolerance technologies used in circuitswitches can't be used inside packetswitches
Oh, I think they'll get there. But it will beg the question of what advantage has been gained. You don't want to pay incremental charges for phone calls? Fine. You'll pay some other way.


VoIP offers me an espace from the claws of telcos and RBOCs. It allows me flatfee worldwide communication, and a free choice to pick my own applications, services, devices and software.
Oh are you ever naive. It's almost fetching in a way.


Nowadays 90% of kids between 9 and 15 years old has broadband at home.
That's certainly not the case in the United States. Broadband penetration here is about 20%. Kids don't pay the telecom bills, by the way, to the numbers for households are the ones to use. Do households with kids have higher penetration rates? Maybe, but not as high as you say. Not here, anyway.


100% of Norwegian kids between 16 and 24 has their own cellphone.
Which, by the way, is a PSTN device.
technonerd
technonerd
12/5/2012 | 1:54:04 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
First, the operating revenues are going to fall, no matter what technology is going to be used to provide the service. This is the result of competition and new technology. LD is now ~$0.05/min just due to pricing pressures, and it doesn't matter if you're using TDM, packets, or string.
I very strongly agree with you. The reason for falling LD prices is two-fold. One is that, due to the overbuilding of fiber during the Bubble, transport costs now round down to zero. Secondly, the terms of the 1982 AT&T breakup essentially eliminated barriers to entry, which means you have something close to perfect price competition.

None of this has anything to do with how the bits are encoded, i.e., in IP or otherwise. I notice that even the propellerheads have dropped their absurd claim that VoIP would somehow be more efficient and therefore cheaper.


There's maintenance contracts, power, space, etc. At some point, the power bill on your 5E exceeds the profits that you make from it. Then what do you do? I grant you that this might not be right away and I'm not suggesting that this would happen immediately.
It's going to be a very, very, very, very, very long time until the traffic through the Class 5s won't pay the electric bill.


Third, again, the business case is about cost. Pre-deregulation, it didn't matter, but now we have the ability to deliver the voice minute for less, and some customers are drawn to it.
Yes, but this ability has no connection whatever to IP technology.


We have a saying in the Valley: you can eat your children for lunch, or someone else can. New technology inevitably drives new price points, which in turn creates more competition. Ain't capitalism grand?
There's another saying or two in the Valley:

If it breaks, it's the stupid user's fault

As long as we can keep the share price up there until the lockup expires, it's o.k.

Ethics and honesty are old-economy concepts
<<   <   Page 6 / 31   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
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