""nrf"" wrote in message.. > > What ATM did was simple. It gave customers a circuit that was > almost good as leased while still providing for multiplexing, and > the cost-savings associated with that, to the provider. In short, > providers could now provide leased lines without actually having > to provide leased lines.
Back when we rolled out ATM networks, especially on Internet backbones, I got this feeling of, "why are customers paying for this when they could be doing this themselves?". I feel the same way about today's networks, only moreso. In Japan, building networks into and out of the country doesn't work. In Japan, a lot of business doesn't flow right. It's because they have too many middle-men. All the long-haul circuits across the Pacific go to Singapore. Why? No middle-men. > Proof of the power of that is simple - look at the tremendous > profit that ATM generates, both natively and as a basis for the > other 'semi' leased line, FR (which is usually carried by ATM). I agree, Service Providers make money off of voice. They make ok margins off of ATM and/or FR overlays (you're right, most FR is ATM Interworking). They lose money on Internet. But some businesses do make money on selling Internet. It's not universal like you say. > Uh, what? Legacy support is an unbelievably good reason to do > something. What's the biggest reason that is stopping all the > carriers in the world from jumping to IP? The fact that they got > billions of dollars of installed base that they obviously don't > want to write off. > > The fact is, carriers are looking for something that allows them > to transition to an IP future without forcing them to write off > their massive legacy infrastructure. Any technology that extends > the life of their ATM gear while giving them a smooth path to the > future is what they're really after. And all-optical gear doesn't do this? Regular IP routers don't help extend the life of an ATM network? All this stuff interconnects fairly well. You don't require MPLS to extend ATM or any legacy technology into the future. I already argued some points you may have missed... sure you can sort of "Interwork" MPLS and ATM. But do we even need the benefits of ATM? 1) Traffic Engineering - Solved, 2) CoS - Don't Need/Want, 3) Network Management - Unanswered? Am I missing anything else? > One serious problem with that line of thought. Simple question. > Which one makes profit for the carrier - the Internet, or X.25/ATM? > I rest my case. What makes more profit for the Enterprise or any customer? Outsourcing simple networks to a Service Provider, or determining the rate of returns and building their own network? Most customers already *have* networks today. They either have Internet access, private networks, or both. They aren't looking to add a new network, unless it's their own. New businesses need networks today, hence outsourcing. But I haven't seen too many of those recently... do you want to start a business that requires an expensive network in this economy? Will you even get funding? > See, that's what I'm saying. Everybody can talk about how powerful > the Internet is. Indeed it is very powerful. On the other hand, > how many carriers can actually demonstrate a profitable business > model from their Internet operations? You and I can talk about > how the Internet is great and how it is going to evolve and all > that till we're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is > that the Internet right now is an operation run by businesses, > and just like any business operation, it is subject to business > considerations like profit/loss. And the fact of the matter is > that the Internet on the whole has been nothing but an unbelievable > dollar loss for the carriers as a whole. Look at all the dying > ISP's. How many carriers are actually making money from their > Internet operations? How many carriers are going to lose their voice profits when interested parties find out that SIP can save them money, and they can do it over their existing networks? The point I'm driving at, is that I don't think carriers or service providers are going to continue to make the money that the telecom or cable industries have in the past. It would be like this for the Energy industry if we suddenly discovered a new energy source and suddenly there was a burst of engineers and amateurs capable of supporting/exploiting this new power. You're exactly right. The Internet is run by businesses (not JUST service providers). It's also run by amateurs. It's also run by military and educational institutions (oh wait, yeah, that's where it came from). All of these people understand profit/loss to some large or small degree. But more importantly, all of them can buy some dark fiber (on the cheap, thanks to the fiber glut), waves, or cheap Layer-3 IP transit (or peering, even cheaper!) and make returns and hurdle rates so rapid and on-the-money, that almost anyone in their right mind (or at least someone that understands Technology) is going to go for it and roll-their-own. I'm not saying Carriers/SP's are going away. But, yes, they are going to have to market, sell, and create new ways of turning profit. They are evolving, too. > I simply have to ask - if carriers cannot find a way to make > money off the Internet (and again, hardly any have done so) , > then why would they and why should they continue to invest in it? > Do they just spend money 'for fun'? The harsh reality is that > the Internet has basically been a giant transfer of wealth from > the carriers to the consumers, which is great for the consumer, > but is also unsustainable. Please somebody inform me - if you > think that Internet buildout is going to continue to continue, > then where is the money going to come from, and why exactly would > carriers perform this buildout (or if not the carriers, then who > is going to do this buildout, and why?)? The fiber is already laid. The airwaves (2.4GHz and 5GHz especially) are free, as well. Networks will be built and will be pieced together like puzzles. Building a network will be as hardwired as turning on a TV for the future generations. dre BTW: thanks for the discussion, this is really warming up to be almost too interesting ;> Hope I'm not wasting time/bandwidth. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58607&t=58493 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
