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! 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! 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! 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=35887&t=35611 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
