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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug who wrote (4002)	4/3/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: Bradley W. Price	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18016

IP Telephony costs, from Pulver report (I don't think there is a problem with posting an extract!): Joe Rinde's Economics of IP Telephony Joe Rinde is the Director of Switched Network Architecture at MCI. Back at Fall '97 VON, Joe spoke during the Plenary session where he discussed the Economics of IP Telephony vs. traditional PSTN. Back at the "Redeveloping the PSTN/IP Gateway" workshop held in Sophia Antipolis - Joe promised to make his spreadsheet available. Joe Rinde <joe.rinde@mci.net> writes: "Here is a clean spreadsheet for the numbers I presented in Boston. Looks like I had two mistakes in the original, but neither changed the basic results. It turned out I used the wrong list price for the gateway ports. I listed the price as , but actually used . I also found an error in the calculation of the OC12 cost per bit. The actual amount was higher than what I used in the presentation results. Both these errors make the IP cost higher than was presented. None the less the IP cost still comes in lower than PSTN for the coast to coast case, by less than one cent per minute.. For the regional case IP was higher (originally I said they were very close) bust still very close to the PSTN number (a difference of a quarter cent). So for all practical purposes there is not difference, as was noted in Boston. The calculations done for Boston were based on 90ms of voice per packet. This is very favorable to IP, but introduces latency that may make the service unacceptable. For that reason I added to the spread sheet calculations for 30ms of voice per packet. For the coast to coast case it was still cheaper for IP, but by so little as to not matter. For the regional case IP got more expensive enough to claim it is more than PSTN. There may be other errors so I welcome comments from the community on the numbers and the method used to derive them." Joe's spreadsheet is downloadable at pulver.com - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are aware of others who would like to receive this service, please forward this entire message to them and cc: report@pulver.com They will automatically receive a subscription. To discontinue your subscription please e-mail: listadm@pulver.com and put REMOVE in the subject. Please send your comments and feedback regarding this issue of The Pulver Report to jeff@pulver.com. Your suggestions for topics to be covered for future issues would be greatly appreciated. Jeff Pulver Tel. 516.753.2640 The Pulver Report Fax. 516.293.3996 March 24, 1998 (c) 1998 pulver.com, Inc. pulver.com:80/reports