BTW, have I mentioned my "perfect storm hypothesis"?

Thu Dec 15 17:40:31 UTC 2005

	Long story short (excerpt from an email I sent to Tony
	Bates and Larry Lang):

---
	In our discussion yesterday on the Service Exchange
	Architecture (SEA) list, I mentioned a kind of a
	"Telecommunications Perfect Storm" (TPS) that we should
	at least be considering as a hedge against our current
	strategy. 

	Recall that my perfect storm scenario was something like:

	(i).	Someone, say google (or ebay/skype), learns how
		to run a profitable, low margin packet carriage
		business. Remember that the "hypothesis" is that 
		packet carriage will always be a low margin
		business as a direct consequence of the end-to-end
		principle. Add to this the fiber (some say
		bandwidth) glut, and you can see scenarios under
		which there is a non-zero (or even significant)
		probability of this outcome.

	(ii).	The access monopolies are somehow broken (say, by
		a technology like WiMAX), and finally,

	(iii).	You get a set of peer-to-peer (p2p) applications
		that attack the incumbent revenue stream
		(starting with voice, but including presence, IM,
		video, ..). 

	How many of these are in place today? Well, clearly google
	is building out, so there is potential for (i). to occur
	any day now. Likewise (ii) (linksys gear with 4 tunable
	radios, North-South WiMAX, east west 802.11bag, and
	you're there). Finally, (iii). has an existence proof
	that has all but wiped out the recording industry, plus
	gtalk, skype, vonage, ... So is the telco industry far
	behind?  

---

	As you might imagine, in a "complexity rich" environment
	you find at most vendors these days, its a hard sell
	(hence the "hedge" mumbo-jumbo). All that being said, I
	have had a bit of success pushing the "simplicity"
	agenda. But its an uphill battle (again, as you might
	imagine). 

	Dave


On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 05:30:08PM +0000, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> And not by offering you anything you might want to buy, either, but by
> setting up wanky little tollbooths.
> 
> On 12/15/05, Fergie <fergdawg at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> > Bingo.
> >
> > What they are really saying is:
> >
> > "We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need new
> > ways to generate additional revenue."
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - ferg
> >
> >
> > -- Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply
> > suspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is getting
> > obsessed by IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to
> > each other that they need it so they can offer "Better QoS,
> > like the subscribers want". What they really mean, I suspect,
> > is killing third party applications that compete with their
> > own. IMS=I Mash Skype. And, I suspect, "QoS" for SBC
> > customer broadband will mean "the speed we advertise so
> > long as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite
> > if you aren't".
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > --
> > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
> > Engineering Architecture for the Internet
> > fergdawg at netzero.net or fergdawg at sbcglobal.net
> > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051215/8029e8bf/attachment.sig>