IP: RE: Entering a "Telecom Dark Ages"?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:56:10 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu, ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
> From: Einar Stefferud <stef () nma com>
> Subject: Re: IP: RE: Entering a "Telecom Dark Ages"?
> Cc: David Prior <DPrior () pbimedia com>
>
> Hi Daves;-)...
>
> It is one of the basic tenets (though not widely known) of the Internet 
> Business Model that collaboration is the basis of wide ranging success, to 
> some extent caused by the way the Internet has reshaped the way users pay 
> for their connectivity services.  The rest is part of the way IP 
> technology was designed.
> The Internet breaks when any of our service providers try to divide and 
> conquer.
>
> The good news is that in due course, over time, they will all learn their 
> lessons about collaborating.  The bad news is that "due course" may not be 
> in our life times.  But, no matter, civilization will muddle through, as 
> it always does.  If the computer had not been invented, the world 
> population would just not know what it was missing, and life would go on 
> without computers.
>
> But, back to the present;-)...
>
> Every Internet End User pays their own fees to their own ISP for all 
> traffic in both directions to reach "The Middle Of The Net" where ever 
> that may be.  If two customers are connected to the same local Service 
> Provider, then the "Middle" is inside that service provider's 
> facilities.  This is how old fashioned local (toll free) telephone service 
> is structured, where-in, both caller and called parties pay for their half 
> of the connection service.  This is not a new idea in telephony.  Just and 
> old forgotten fact.
>
> If the sender/receiver pair are more distant, then the "middle" moves out 
> into the longer distance backbone carriers, who all charge their service 
> provider customers for carrying all their traffic in both directions, just 
> like the local customers pay.  The backbone carriers gain from the way 
> that the costs of bandwidth decrease as "VOLUME" increases, so they gain 
> from the ability to bundle and multiplex traffic.
>
> But, they are all paid to carry traffic in both directions for all their 
> customers, regardless of directional imbalances!  (Well, some customers 
> buy Asymmetrical DSL, because their traffic will never be symmetric, and 
> it apparently costs less to provision for asymmetry. This also eases the 
> problems of provisioning for service providers so it makes sense all around.
>
> So, when Cable and Wireless decided to cut off PSI for reasons of 
> asymmetric traffic at their peering point, they are telling all of us that 
> they do not understand the Internet Business Model!
>
> They are failing to honor their commitments to their other customers to 
> deliver traffic that they have paid to have delivered, on both sides of 
> their peering point.  It is extremely rare for any user or ISP to be able 
> to balance traffic in both directions between any two points, as mail from 
> A to B forwards many more packets than the protocols send backward as 
> acknowledgments, and HTTP requests to Web sites always result in a larger 
> flood of returned traffic.
>
> So, Cable and Wireless shorted its own customers to spite PSI.  I expect 
> that it was Cable and Wireless's own customer complaints that caused Cable 
> and Wireless to restore the peering service, because in fact, Cable and 
> Wireless has contracted with its paying customers to carry all their 
> traffic in both directions to where ever it is addressed, and it is Cable 
> and Wireless's responsibility to so deliver.
>
> So, I expect that this Internet Paradigmatic Business Model shift is part 
> of what David Prior is talking about.  Actually it is a very simple shift, 
> with huge consequences.  And it is a shift that surprisingly few people in 
> the industry seem to grasp.  Maybe the timer has come for this to become 
> common knowledge, rather than a secret known by only a few of us.
>
>
> The bottom line here is that I, as a customer, pay my ISP to deliver my 
> outbound traffic to the rest of the net, and to deliver all traffic to me 
> that is directed to me by anyone else anywhere on the net.  If my ISP does 
> not do this, I will soon be seeking another ISP, or finding some other way 
> to work around the problem, because partial access is just not what I want 
> to buy and pay for!
>
> So, carrier collaboration is the nexus of the new business model, and 
> those who are not able to collaborate, will be weeded out in due course;-)...
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>
> At 12:34 -0400 19/06/01, David Farber wrote:
> > > From: David Prior <DPrior () pbimedia com>
> > > To: farber () cis upenn edu
> > > Subject: RE: Entering a "Telecom Dark Ages"?
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:26:02 -0400
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Dave,
> > >
> > > This has been one of my primary concerns for a while now. Back in November
> > > 1999 I presented a stylised chart to an audience of telecoms personnel which
> > > showed the impending failure of the traditional telecoms model. That slide
> > > was part of a wider analytical perspective concerned with the repeat of the
> > > presumtive anomaly principle as telecommunications becomes communications.
> > > As changes in the communications components of the telecommunications
> > > industry cycle ever faster, so they exert pressure on the evolutionary cycle
> > > in the telecommunications industry as a whole - forcing a cusp event. This
> > > shift to a new set of models, mindsets, and methods (what I term 'm-cubed')
> > > is the fundamental cause of the symptoms we see today in the traditional
> > > telecommunications and, by extrapolation and knock-on, network businesses.
> > >
> > > The more worrying aspect of this is that it is not just the US that stands
> > > to lose out. Without getting into the 'globalisation: good or bad' topic,
> > > there is a tendency for activity in the US to roll-down as precedent to
> > > other regions. Witness the knock-on of the dot-bomb events in regions of the
> > > world that had not even reached the same stage as the US: when the US market
> > > began to have doubts, investment and belief pulled out globally. The wider
> > > ramifications of this lie in terms of the decision that must be made. Do we
> > > move to a communications model designed and supported with global intent, or
> > > do we turn back to traditional telecommunications - supported by segregation
> > > of service, division of function and format, and legacy architectures in
> > > terms of both the network and the mindset?
> > >
> > > It's about time that the telecommunications industry got a wake-up call and
> > > began to understand the wider context of the term 'network': it involves
> > > methods related to collaboration and community just as much as it refers to
> > > the means.
> > >
> > > Feel free to post to IP. Anyone who wants to take me up on this argument is
> > > more than welcome to contact me directly. [ INCLUDE ME IN THE LIST FOR 
> > > IP USE]
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > David Prior
> > > Director, eServices and Infrastructure Practice
> > > Tarifica/PBI MEDIA Ltd
> > > (formerly The Phillips Group)
> > >
> > > Telephone: +44 (0)1769 520713
> > > Cellular: +44 (0)7788 592982
> > >
> > > UK Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 139 1215
> > > US Fax-to-email: +1 509 278 4246
> > >
> > > eMail: dprior () pbimedia com
> > > or: dprior () consultant com
> > >
> > > Web: http://www.pbimedialtd.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  > -----Original Message-----
> > >  > From: David Farber [SMTP:dave () farber net]
> > >  > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 00:31
> > >  > To:   ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
> > >  > Subject:      IP: Entering a "Telecom Dark Ages"?
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > >
> > >  > >From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger () ultradevices com>
> > >  > >Organization: UltraDevices Inc.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >The Level 3 and Nortel bad numbers/ layoff announcements combined with
> > >  > all
> > >  > >the other indicators has me concerned that we've entered a "Telecom 
> > > Dark
> > >  > >Ages". The ILECs have out survived most of their competitors due to 
> > > their
> > >  >
> > >  > >monopoly revenue  streams. The Bush Administration allows the ILECs to
> > >  > >stomp out any remaining competition.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >Now that the ILECs have no competition, they've slowed  down their
> > >  > >deployment and raised their prices. The VCs and Wall Street are no 
> > > longer
> > >  >
> > >  > >investing in any service providers so there can be no one to take
> > >  > >advantage of wireless or other disruptive technology that could "route
> > >  > >around" the ILECs...
> > >  > >
> > >  > >So even though there are  millions of people in the US who would 
> > > like to
> > >  > >get broadband service, but are not within reach of xDSL or Cable Modem,
> > >  > >there is no industry being built to service that need.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >It doesn't look like this situation will change until there is some 
> > > truly
> > >  >
> > >  > >disruptive tech (UWB/SDR?) and/or regulatory change. This could mean
> > >  > >several years of a "Telecom Dark Ages" in the US while other countries
> > >  > >(like China?) continue on their explosive and competitive Telecom
> > >  > >buildouts, potentially having the US loose its technological edge...
> > >  > >--
> > >  > >Robert J. Berger
> > >  > >UltraDevices, Inc.
> > >  > >257 Castro Street, Suite 223 Mt. View CA. 94041
> > >  > >Voice: 408-882-4755 Fax: 408-490-2868
> > >  > >Email: rberger () ultradevices com  http://www.ultradevices.com
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
> >
> >
> >
> > For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/