If I may propose a few counterpoints:
----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:09 AM Subject: Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] In a message dated 2/18/2002 9:13:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: nrf, I tend to agree with what you said about broadband. However, I think I can sum it up in 3 points: *The Broadband market is not the success story vendors had claimed because: 1. The low learning curve of the average internet user....grandma and grndpa are just learning about how to operate that dial-up thingy! But apparently grandma and grandpa have learned the dialup thing pretty good by now. I read a story on CNET that says that Internet penetration (almost all dial) in the United States is now above 60%, so that obviously includes a lot of people who aren't particularly tech savvy. But again, that leaves you with an even more depressing taste in your mouth. Obviously lots of people have used the Internet and understand what it's about. But, having this understanding, apparently the vast majority of those users do not see why it is worth it to pay more money for greater speed. Again, from Hart/Whitman: "... If you cannot win over the people who are currently using the Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow and limited..." http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html. And of course dropping prices is not really an option because offering broadband at too low of a price is what got all these providers in trouble in the first place. And maybe price really isn't the issue at all - according to Hart/Whitman, 48% of those without broadband are not interested in it at any price. 2. None of the mid-level providers have the capital to sustain slow growth and none of the "big 4" want to invest in a recession......its just not economically prudent to sell a secondary service such as internet when people are out of work and can barely afford food and rent! That would make sense, except for the fact that these laid-off and poor workers are still apparently willing to shell out dough for other kinds of telco services that I would consider 'secondary'. For example, digital cable TV has more than double the uptake rate of broadband. I would consider having the ability to watch 5 different HBO channels to be rather 'secondary'. Satellite TV (DirecTV, Echostar) has also achieved greater success than broadband. Isn't the ability to watch every single NFL game in the country on Sunday the very definition of 'secondary'? Cell phone penetration is highly successful, much more successful than broadband. Isn't that secondary (after all, most cell-phone users also maintain their landline, so the cellphone just an extra, expensive, although highly convenient phone)? In each case (digital cable, satellite TV, cellphone), the monthly cost is roughly the same or more as broadband, if you factor in the costs of equipment (especially for satelliteTV, where the cost of the receiver is large). So we're talking about roughly the same amount of money, so obviously consumers have money they are willing to spend. Then that begs the question - if broadband is really that good, how come consumers would rather spend money on those other services? 3. The chain of events over the last 9 months that have compounded the socioeconomic struggles of the United States as a whole have left us a nation of fear and apprehension of the future......you can't tell me that this factor, especially, doesn't come into play when IT companies are deciding how to best spend next year's budget! Really? Fear and apprehension of the future? Well, again, that would make sense if there was a corresponding massive shift down in consumer spending across the board. Yet, economic reports indicates that consumer spending has stayed surprisingly strong even after September 11, and in fact, many articles from the major business magazines - Businessweek, Forbes, Fortune, etc. have expressed surprise at the remarkable relatively strength in consumer spending - and in fact have gone so far as to credit the consumer as the one shining beacon of hope in an otherwise dismal economy. For example, "...Fear of terrorism was expected to keep shoppers at home. But consumers seemed to shrug off uncertainty. That was especially clear in the yearend trend in home sales. Consumers showed great willingness to take on the huge financial commitment of paying off a mortgage. December sales of new homes rose 5.7% to an annual rate of 946,000. Sales of new houses set a record of 901,000 for all of 2001." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_06/b3769037.htm "...Consumers may actually be set to boost their spending. Even if it seems that home and auto sales can't possibly surge the way they typically do coming out of a recession, other sectors of the economy should make up for that. Travel ought to get a big boost as consumers reschedule trips they postponed following September 11. Consumer-electronics purchases are showing signs of picking up as innovation in personal computing drives demand. Both Apple and Dell reported recently that sales to consumers have been stronger than they expected. " http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2002/nf20020129_3357.htm So again, the question is why is it that when it comes to broadband, people are holding back because of fear, but when it comes to buying things like houses, cars, consumer electronics, household goods, vacation packages, and so forth, consumers apparently aren't feeling fearful? Honestly, does that make sense to you? Once again, I don't think that you can properly blame macro-economic trends like terrorism or the recession. Nor can you really blame a lack of tech savviness. I concede these may be factors, but only minor factors. The core issue is that, quite frankly, consumers have decided that broadband is not a good deal at the present time. "...it's a lack of perceived value. That's why they're staying away from the service." http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html My .02c, Rob H. Subj:Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] Date:2/18/2002 9:13:35 PM Central Standard Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (nrf) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (nrf) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > That article taked about 1 problem, the problem almost every company had - > grabing too much land and equipment with no customers or sustainable > revenue. But that's also the problem every dot-bomb had. Thankfully the > buble burst, the madness ended and took out the garbage. No company would > stay in business that way. This dosen't mean that their services weren't > wanted. Most every home who has a dial-up, most buisinesses that don't have > DSL in their area are still waiting for the right company/technology to come > by and at the right price. I'm afraid I have to disagree. The simple fact is that in many cases, the services were in fact not wanted, at least at the price points they were offered at, but then of course if they were offered at lower price points, there would have been even less profit than there already was. And the fact is, despite all the hype from New Economy providers, there is not a huge outcry of demand for high-speed access. There is some demand, but nowhere near the demand that a lot of people thought there would be. I used to believe otherwise. Because I'm always doing stuff on the Net, and therefore I rely on my broadband, I assumed that there must have been ravenous demand for broadband connections. I assumed that everybody was like me. Wrongo. The fact is that there is only a small subset of the population that is tech and computer savvy and can honestly feel the difference between a broadband link and standard dialup, certainly enough that they would feel the need to pay extra for broadband. The numbers say otherwise. In the past, broadband was not widely available, but not this is not so. It is estimated that well over 70% of households within the US have access to some kind of broadband (cable/DSL/satellite/fixed wireless). (70% of all U.S. households have access to high-speed cable, and I'm not even talking about the other kinds of broadband - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/broadband/comments2/Napster.htm, ) Yet a sobering fact is that even where broadband is available, consumer demand has been low: "...even where there is deployment of broadband infrastructure, there has been low consumer uptake...Groups such as the Consumer Energy Council of America and the National Cable Television Association have also noted the slow uptake of consumer use of DSL and cable modems even where currently deployed." http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm?key=10 Perhaps the most sobering is the Hart/Winston study that states: ' "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to subscribe to high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of appeal," said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no interest regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay at most $20 per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently using the Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow and limited..." ' http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html If you still need convincing, then flip things around. If there really is this huge groundswell of demand for broadband access, then ..."...why have only 10 percent of those with access to broadband purchased it?" (http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp). In the United States, basic phone uptake rates are at 99% or so, basic cable TV is about 70%, uptake, digital cable TV is about 25% uptake, and cellphone uptake is at least 25% (uptake defined to be those people who can get who choose to get it). So why is broadband uptake so low. You would think that if people were beating down the doors for broadband, that uptake would be much much higher than it is. Or, as Stephen Ricchetti said it best: "Overwhelmingly, people think it's a bad deal at current costs," Ricchetti said. "What we are looking at is a demand issue, not a supply issue" http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp The simple fact is, the demand is not really there. The vast majority of people (generally high-income, tech-savvy people) who want high-speed access already have it. The majority of the population is not like this, and for whatever reason do not see a whole lot of value in high-speed. Is this a price thing - is it just too expensive? Maybe (but according to Hart/Winston, when 48% of people currently without broadband express no interest in it, and another 21% will not pay more than what they pay for dialup, maybe price is not the issue - http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html). Or is it a problem with perception and marketing? Or both? Who knows? Another depressing snippet from Hart/Winston: "...Other data show that while the majority believed some form of Internet access should be available in all parts of the country, relatively few users (30 percent) place a high priority on ensuring that all Americans have access to high-speed service. In fact, more respondents (32 percent) rated this a low priority." > Now we just have to wait for the right technology to > come by and offer good service at a good price. I'm can't deny that things like Moore's law implies continual advances. But from what the above studies have shown, we might be waiting around for awhile. The consumers have spoken - the majority of them are perfectly happy with dial and do not want more than that, certainly not at higher cost. After all, dial has one gigantic advantage over broadband - dial is simply more reliable. " "A new technology that decreases reliability and uptime isn't "technologically advanced" - it's buggy. Outside of early adopters and speed freaks, I don't see a sizeable percentage of the population paying two and a half times as much for flakier Internet access....Stable technologies tend to last, whatever their weaknesses compared to newer, glitzier ones" " http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s%253D916%2526a%253D13570,00. asp > There is also another problem that was just as bad - the market was flooded > with service providers. There was WAY too much supply and only moderatre > demand. Yep exactly. But again, this is apparently what people want. Or look at it the other way - rather than having lots and lots of providers killing each other in the market, would things be better if there were only a small handful of giant providers that held large market sway? And I think the term 'moderate' is too strong. A better description of demand is 'fair' or 'tepid'. The simple fact is that while there is a big difference between being connected to the Internet and not being connected, once you are connected, having higher speeds is of only minor benefit. "...the ones who tend to be impressed are those who do large file transfers through FTP or HTTP. Casual Web browsers, on the other hand, are surprised at how little speed increase they see with ADSL. That shouldn't be surprising; Most of the World Wide Wait is time waiting for overloaded servers, not time waiting for data to make it through clogged pipes." http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s%253D916%2526a%253D13570,00. asp > > I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service > provider market. I hope so too. But the data seems to indicate a much more pessimistic future, at least in the short run. > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > For example, here is just one study from today: > > > > http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the > > > telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general > economic > > > recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, > and > > > many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have > > > already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are > > > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt > > > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be > > > cleared up anytime soon. > > > > > > One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few > > providers > > > actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the > > > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of > > > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim > > > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see > > > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. > > > > > > But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All > this > > > talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody > > right > > > now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the > long > > > run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects > in > > > the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > > > > ""saktown"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not > (probably > > > > not), > > > > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these > networks > > > that > > > > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the > industry > > > can > > > > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of > > complex > > > > > networks to maintain. > > > > > > > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of > networks, > > > and > > > > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While > the > > > > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > > > > > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic > > > > proportions. > > > > > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an > enterprise, > > > > > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check > > out > > > > the > > > > > latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. > > > > > Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires > very > > > > little > > > > > skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), > > > > whereas > > > > > provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore > > > requiring > > > > > great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more > > provider > > > > > network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network > > > dudes > > > > > who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs > running > > > > > networks for enterprises. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "John Green" > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > > > > > > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > > > > > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > > > > > > in the job market. > > > > > > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > > > > > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how long is this goind to last ? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35878&t=35611 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
