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

[David Meyer <dmm () 1-4-5 net>]

        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 () 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 () 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 () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net
> > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

Attachment: _bin
Description: