x
<<   <   Page 4 / 4
flanker 12/4/2012 | 8:24:31 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday THANK YOU
flanker 12/4/2012 | 8:24:31 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday with all due respect (I'm getting tired of repeating that) to JPM and McKinsey, changing industry outlook is not a driver for IP traffic. Diminishing expectations have affected consumer spending and private sector investment, which is slowing the rate of build in the telecom industry and the rate fo consumption on the consumer side.

However, backbone traffic is a fundamental economic building block, and hardly forecast to decline over time. The anecdotal evidence last year was that traffic at IXC nodes was doubling every thirty to ninety days.

I do not see how an industry transitions from traffic growth of 250-1500% per year to 4% per month.

Either someone misinterpreted the report or the analysts were asking the wrong questions. It would be nice if we could get a striaght answer.


flanker 12/4/2012 | 8:24:31 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday If this is the case, then my apologies, looks like ballpark data to me:


- The study results show that traffic transmitted using the IP will increase explosively, dominating long-distance telephone networks and leading to long-distance traffic growth of more than 60 percent a year, compared with 20 percent a year historically.

- The CAGR of long-haul Internet traffic will be 110% over the period 1999 - 2004.

- The revenue per Megabit of Internet traffic will decline from $.005 to $.001 in 2004.

- The revenue for delivered Internet service will increase from $10.5 B in 1999 to $58.3 B in 2004 for a CAGR of 41%.
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 8:24:30 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday It is also essential if your selling cars, groceries or any other trinket you want the consumer to purchase.
What insight, what vision, will you sleep with me?
IP will die because it has to, its not efficient, nor flexible enough to offer those special features that will flock the masses to the big wonderful network.
-------------------------------

And whats going to replace it? The optical stuff (MPLS) offers even less flexability. People have been announcing the death of IP for years. It never happens. Because when you start looking at the problems, you will find out that there isn't anything that can do much better.

ATM never lived up to its promises. And the people who want to hijack MPLS and turn it into ATM version 2 will not be able to deliver on the promises they are making. TDM and crossconnects fill certain roles in the network, but they don't replace switched traffic.







wildcard 12/4/2012 | 8:24:26 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday >And whats going to replace it?

Well if I tell you I will have to kill you.

On the MPLS one I would have to agree, except if you are saying this lack of flexibility is even worse than IP which we have been told is going to die, do you mean to say that MPLS wonGÇÖt even make it out of the starting gate?

As far as the ATM, IP, MPLS, issue and who is right well that is a layer 8, 9 and 10 problem. IMHO, this may never get resolved without some major compromise between the market, vendors and the folks who have to pay for this habit the consumer, we have to like it too. This issue is some of the reason the industry is in its current condition, shall we say GÇ£In the ShitterGÇ¥.

Sorry I can tell you more but, there is a solution, that addresses the root of this evil. I hope we get there before the breadlines get too long.

jmd 12/4/2012 | 8:24:25 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday Paul When/Where can we get the report?
Paul Roche 12/4/2012 | 8:24:25 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday A summary version of the report will soon be posted on McKinsey's web site.

Paul
flanker 12/4/2012 | 8:24:19 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday This LR story makes a heck of a lot more sense now that the sensationalism has been toned down.

I wish somebody had cleared this prior to its first run.

Thanks to Paul R for his feedback.
gladysnight 12/4/2012 | 8:24:12 PM
re: Report Heralds IP Doomsday " . .. I do not see how an industry transitions from traffic growth of 250-1500% per year to 4% per month . . "
+++++++++++++++++++++

I think it was 4%/month revenue growth (based on my reading of Paul Roche's post.

I didn't get the idea he was referring to traffic, but the revenue from that traffic . . .

Does that make sense? Paul, is that accurate?
<<   <   Page 4 / 4
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE