begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 10 November 2006 08:44 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Disruptive technology.
>>>
>>> Is the telephone apocalypse now?
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Chris LymanChris Lyman is certain of it.
>>>|
>>>| He told me yesterday that Fonality's PBXtra is just that, the
>>>| end not just of traditional telephony but of traditional
>>>| telephony channels.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=833
>>>
>>>
>>> VoIPowering Your Office with Asterisk: Shiny New Asterisk 1.4
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Digium has released the Asterisk 1.4 beta. New! Shiny! Improved! This
>>>| is the first major update since 1.2 was launched over a year ago.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.voipplanet.com/backgrounders/article.php/3640866
>>>
>>> No wonder Verizon et al want to start taxing traffic/services (charging by
>>> the byte).
>>
>> What's wrong with charging by the byte, though? This is the only way in
>> which net neutrality can be maintained. If you don't do that, the 10%
>> leech users will get 90% of the bandwidth at the expense of 90% of the
>> paying customers, which is fundamentally broken.
>>
>> Basic telecoms costs come in a fixed part and variable part, covering
>> local loop, duct, fibre, power, backup-power, alarm management,
>> operational stations, spares, spares logistics, integration costs
>> and licensing fees to suppliers, network stresses associated with
>> actually moving traffic, network planning, re-arrangement, provisioning
>> (of customers and links), billing, commissioning of new plant and new
>> services & capabilities. The more you consume, the more that many of
>> those costs are directly or indirectly increased.
>>
>> The profit margins of fixed-line telcos have now fallen to < 10%, and
>> are still falling. Soon they will be lower than those of high-street
>> supermarkets, unless the trend can be shifted. This means that they're
>> operating in a commoditised world, and commodity thinking must be
>> applied. In commodities, if you use more, you pay more, or the supplier
>> goes out of business.
>>
>> 10 years ago, AT&T were the world's largest telco, but they didn't
>> face up to the market shifts, continuing to behave as if they had luxury
>> provider margins. Last year, they went *out of business*. AT&T went
>> bust. Everyone seems to have swept this rather embarassing fact under
>> the carpet, but it does illustrate what happens when you ignore basic
>> economics.
>>
>> So, you might think, well, who cares? AT&T got it wrong and they went
>> bust. Well, okay, it's a perspective, but as a model, it's not
>> sustainable. The investment made in AT&T was squandered, its assets
>> being sold on for rather less than they'd paid for them. AT&T
>> essentially provided a subsidy for SBC, and for SBC's customers. This
>> can only be repeated a few times until there's noone left whose money
>> you can grab. At that point, someone will have to start paying for what
>> this stuff /actually costs/.
>>
>> What Asterisk is good for is for showing up the enormous margins and
>> lock-ins enjoyed by traditional vendors of PBX equipment. The network
>> operators would sell these on, but the cost of the PBX would be part of
>> the "cost of sale", ie., the customer would pay. From a network
>> operator's viewpoint, traffic is traffic, there's no reason why type a
>> or type b should be charged for differently - a bit is a bit is a bit,
>> no matter *what* higher layer protocol it's residing in. This is much
>> the same argument as why linux and FLOSS are a good thing, they
>> highlight the huge costs and lock-ins of proprietary software. But it's
>> not the retailers of the software who get the blame for this, so why do
>> we blame operators for the pricing activities of PBX vendors? And come
>> to that, we don't expect retailers to treat linux PCs any differently
>> from Windows PCs, so why should we expect network operators to treat one
>> bit or byte differently from another?
>
> All are fair points, but they raise many issues too. This has been discussed
> to death, so there's probably little or no reason to repeat them.
Um, I'd have to disagree there, the implications of these issues are
huge, and will determine which network operators are still standing in
ten years time, and also will determine just how networks will work.
>
> Either way, looking ahead, here are some articles you may find interesting.
>
> Democrat Sweep Good News For Net Neutrality
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Whether the Network Neutrality debate is officially settled amongst
>| charged, polarized stakeholders is an issue that will be tabled
>| for the moment.
> `----
>
> http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/marketinginsider/wpn-50-20061109DemocratSweepGoodNewsForNetNeutrality.html
Politicians created the current mess, I don't really expect them to be
any more capable now than they were the last time...
What gets lost here is that the only way we will get net neutrality is
to begin charging for access (dsl pipe, maintenance, provisioning, etc.)
and for bits moved across the network. Anything else is not going to be
sustainable. We can also look at having subscriber-based services and
advertising services on top, so that if you went to youtube you'd pay:
1) Access line monthly fixed charge (or wifi fixed charge, or umts...)
2) X euro-cents/bit moved in each direction
3) Y euro-cents for the service, or watch adverts if it's "free".
There is unlikely to be any other model which will be less expensive and
will ensure that all players have an equal /chance/ of surviving.
>
> Broader coverage here:
>
> Election Spawns New Hope for Tech
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Tuesday's losers here include global warming skeptics, creationists and
>| Bush henchmen who censored climate-change evidence at the National
>| Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and NASA. Gordon has vowed to
>| investigate claims of malfeasance.
> `----
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,72089-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1
The Bush administration's position on global warming has been one of the
most absurd things I've ever seen, perhaps only trumped by insisting
that Saddam H had WMDs when even the UN investigator insisted that he
did not. Of course, everyone tries to cover up the reasons given for
the invasion of Iraq in the first place - what a total disaster this
whole thing was and is, and on top of that, we've got a new generation
of UK-haters in the Muslim world. 10/10, Tony B, well done.
>
> Sorry I can't reply as much as I would like (or used to). It would have to
> come at the expense of new Linux-related information and research into
> Microsoft's corruptions that sabotage Linux (let's expose these like Groklaw
> does, particularly when it comes to SCO).
Your posting choices are very much yours. I'd rather see what you're
posting, either way, than what the off-topic folks dump in here.
>
> I am also still employed, so there are time constraints and little time for
> leisure. Well, at least I got to play the third squash game in that
> tournament last night. I lost.
>
Ah, never mind - wait for the next one!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Joe's sister puts spaghetti in her shoes!
|
|
