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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (13369)	2/3/2006 6:54:56 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

What happened? In much the same way that there are ethical lawyers who defend rapists and murderers, I don't see anything sinister in what Cisco is doing. I don't happen to like it, though. In the end, is setting prioritization and traffic policy for carriers and backbone providers really Cisco's call to make? Then again, the company is most definitely very heavily represented in the IETF. Hmm.. If you follow the school that says the service providers set their own policies, then Cisco is merely following market demand. Of course, even that is debatable, but I think Cisco is trying to remain on top, knowing full well that if they don't fill the SPs requirements in this instance, then someone else will, and while they're at it the interloper will begin further eroding market share elsewhere, as well. Unfortunately, however, in order to leverage their policy management and QoS development work that began more than ten years ago (we discussed this on the original board, if you recall) in this one area, they very likely will build an arsenal of other susbsystem fabrics that will serve to perpetuate the philosophy into bigger and more convuluted frameworks into the future. During the same period that elapsed since they were chanting the empowerment thing, Cisco quietly shifted its sales focus, in order to be more inclusive (always hedging their way, they are ... ), to the large common carrier side of the universe, as well. Where unit profits for CRS-1 and CMTS gear seem to be producing better margins with less toil than Linksys sales. I may be off on my margin analysis, but not in identifying the whys and wherefores of its new market direction.

To: ftth who wrote (13369)	2/4/2006 1:00:06 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Respond to of 46821

Hi ftth, All large companies have many moving parts, and for Cisco, ~25% of the business comes from Service Providers. Commercial Business (SMB) is about 30%, and Enterprise is > 40%. The whitepapers cited came from the Service Provider organization. Service Creation Engine (DynamicSoft), etc. are featured products, appealing to SP's need for Control - without Control, you are without QoS. Service Providers control their medium(s), but not applications like Skype, nor Part 15 mediums. The old slogan was "The network works, no excuses" Cisco of 1999 was warring camps, of 2002 was all flying together. Of 2006 is beginning to diverge. Maybe Commercial Business needs a CPE company to match Linksys and Scientific-Atlanta ;-) >>Inquiring minds want to know...is this representative of the overall company viewpoint or are these quotes just some of the cable and telco "business units being business units."<< Business as usual in the Technical Marketing trenches. John Chambers speaks for Cisco. He learned his lesson on packet voice - don't anger your thirty largest customers. He is not going to espouse a peer-to-peer communications model until his thirty largest customers want one. petere