Skype: In Numbers

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

JohnMike 12/5/2012 | 4:17:28 PM

re: Skype: In Numbers

I've had this rant going for a few years running and your Skype article bears it out.

Regulators in every market should let two, maybe a third, major network operators build, maintain, and operate state-of-the-art wireline and wireless infrastructure platforms, and sell wholesale servcies to any marketer (including the network operators' own sales organizations) with a retail customer base.

This way the industry enjoys high capital efficiencies, and moves telecom services competition to where it really belongs ... in the hands of the customer.

This approach also avoids useless campaigns like 'my network is bigger than your network!' about which customers could care less!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

digits 12/5/2012 | 4:17:28 PM

re: Skype: In Numbers

This is what they are doing in Singapore with the single fixed network and attempting in Australia with the NBN.

It's the first step towards the netco/servco model that, eventually, will likely play out, with many netcos being run by the current vendors such as Ericsson and NSN. 

Hence Alcatel-Lucent focusing more on 'applications enablement' and Ericsson and NSN focusing more on their professional services divisions. 

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

ycurrent 12/5/2012 | 4:17:24 PM

re: Skype: In Numbers

ummm... vendor strategies from ALU et al. are not because the network is no longer needed, but rather to monetize the networks that ARE needed, and offer things, such as QoS, that service companies (i.e., those that invest in people and IT) cannot offer all their customers (that care).  Therefore, the network is central to ALU's app enablement, as it is to the professional services of NSN, Ericsson, and others.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Sisyphus 12/5/2012 | 4:17:21 PM

re: Skype: In Numbers Does Skype own it's *entire* infrastructure? No. Networks are needed, more than ever, the big question is can they be monetized more successfully?
I love the Skype model, and I am ecstatic to see they now have the management they deserved all along. Their continued success will lead to either a quick acquisition, or to them being broken up in 10 years by the United Nations because of their global monopoly on long distance... Remember the old ATT monopoly... :)
Now... Skype guys, I can help. Hire me dammit. :)

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

JohnMike 12/5/2012 | 4:16:57 PM

re: Skype: In Numbers

You missed the point.  Absolutely a network is needed.  And it should be the biggest and most advanced platform that the vendors can supply.

My point is that not every service provider needs to own its own infrastructure.  Rather, let any outfit that wants to sell telecom services buy capacity and capabilities on a wholesale basis from one or two big network operators and sell those services to any retail customer base it chooses. 

We're at a point where it requires too much capex to build new networks.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD