Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Frank Coluccio Technology Forum - ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1273)	3/15/2000 12:06:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 1782

Hi Ray, I hardly think that the article did justice to the situation. Behind all of that fanfare there is a lot of low level crap (tedium and drudgery) taking place on a self-perpetuating basis. I don't have the time or inclination to write about it here this evening. I'm making every effort to remain free from being cynical on this topic right now. Any legitimate coverage of this topic would have brought in more mention of the IETF, IANA/ICANN, and other Internet governance and standards-setting bodies to explain the interplay between them (old world ITU and new world Internet) that needs to be established. Or, does it? The article was interesting for its fuzzy-wuzziness, yet useless for its lack of illumination of anything substantive. Just being the ITU, itself, is a difficult task. Just think of all the languages they need to translate every memo into, and then the number of copies that must be made, and then the distribution of same to every member organization and individual (carriers and suppliers whose members sit on the study groups, alike) via postal and... Thanks for re-priming the pump here, btw. FAC

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1273)	3/15/2000 9:12:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1782

Ray, re: some pm's and emails I've received on this topic, let me say a few more things about my regard for the ITU's predicament right now. The ITU's acknowledgement of the forces of change is a veiled manifestation of fear in many ways. Their need to get a handle on the 'net by creating new initiatives can be construed as a friendly, yet nervous, gesture to a new community of industry players who would transcend it in a flash if they could, and who could obviate it within the next several years for the majority of the earth's coverage, if they don't get with it, quickly. The ITU, like every other brick in yesterday's foundation, is in some ways acknowledging that if they don't join the revolution, they will be left behind or worse, in its wake. Having said that, I don't dispel the previous needs that they've filled, and the benefits that they've been responsible for over the years in assisting to orchestrate international telecommunications through the latter part of its first hundred years of operation. But if we've learned only one thing during these past couple of years regarding future prizes for yesterday's merits, it's that they will not be awarded. Those who are irrevocably caught up in yesterday, irrespective of their reasons and justifications, will be doomed to yesterday. Their only hope, assuming that there is a future and unquestionable need for them in the first place, is to redouble their efforts in order to grasp today and envision tomorrow. In this respect, the ITU's work is going to be extraordinarily difficult, if they can pull it off at all. My thoughts and suspicions have been suggesting to me for a while, already, that the forces of industry (the very large players who were mentioned in the article who want their products and services spec'ed in) will tacitly act to neutralize many of the Internet's original modi operandi going forward, and help the ITU to more gradually acclimate and assimilate itself into a model of a modified Internet of the future, as we are now already beginning to see in many areas. Witness the many VoIP/IP Telephony compromises which have already taken place; VPN's which are really private IP backbones (some using ATM or just plain old private lines attached to legacy forms of switches and gateways, to boot); and other examples which abound where the big boys have made some bogus claims under the rubric of IP this and that. This is not to be judgmental, but simply some observations of a networkologist, who has had significant experiences in international telecommunications, of the changes that are now taking place. It could be argued that only through the use of new superstar industry players will the ITU and many of the world's regulatory agencies survive, as well as the larger vendors themselves who want to see their goods and services used. This may be the only way for them to both "catch up" and survive in the new world. They will need a loud say in how it is molded. Right now the ITU seems to be losing its voice, though. And so, they must bring on some stronger voices who would (and often have) say (said) just about anything plausible to have their names in the press associated with initiatives that foster progress in international telecommunications. And so it goes. FACt