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 : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: djane who wrote (47085)	5/18/1998 4:54:00 PM
From: Sowbug	Respond to of 61433

Contest update <http://townlet.com/sowbug/contest/>: Our only hope of unseating Daniel W. Koehler from his continued reign at #1 is if INTC plummets. Unfortunately, that'll likely take the rest of our picks, and our real-life portfolios, along with it.

To: djane who wrote (47085)	5/18/1998 8:23:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

3/1/98 America's Network on Web-enabled network management services [Contains ASND quotes on VPNs] americasnetwork.com Waiting on the Web. The technology and the demand for Web-enabled network management services are there. So, why are carriers still dragging their feet on cracking open their systems? Shira Levine The World Wide Web-a vast repository of every conceivable bit of information and entertainment, from online shopping to interactive games to 27 home pages dedicated to the dancing baby on TV's "Ally McBeal." But as valuable as the Web is as a source of amusement and a waster of time, there is another side to it. Business users are finding the Web a valuable tool, not only for doing research or setting up home pages, but also for carrying out critical business processes. Extend that phenomenon to the telecommunications space, and add the advent of competition in previously monopolistic markets. The result is an enormous shift in how America does business, and what it expects of its service providers. "The telecommunications industry is shifting based on two paradigms that have been introduced-the Web and deregulation," says Stephen Borcich, director of product development for Sunsoft's Network Software Group at Sun Microsystems (Menlo Park, Calif.). "The Web has brought in a whole new set of technologies and new services that end users want to take advantage of, and competition has brought in all kinds of new players and new ideas about how to use the technology to provide services." For corporate customers, the combination of the two have effected major changes of how they do business and with whom. The Web offers a wide array of previously unavailable options; if their service provider doesn't make those options available to businesses, they can simply find one that does. While carriers may not be thrilled with this "my way or the highway" attitude from their customers, they're accepting it fairly gracefully in nearly all areas except one-network management. Vendors are leveraging the power of the Web to develop network management solutions that let service providers' customers track on the Web the status of their network services. Likewise, customers are more than happy to have that capability. The bottleneck is the service providers, who aren't quite ready to get that open with their customers. The rush to outsource For end users, Web-enabled network management seems to provide the perfect solution for a problem plaguing them since virtual private networks (VPNs) began rising in popularity a few years ago (Figure 1). On one hand, VPNs, in which a customer replaces private leased lines with on-demand bandwidth and circuits within the public network, can represent major economic advantages, particularly as bandwidth needs shift over time. "What we see is that the old 80/20 ratio for corporations, where 80% of network traffic stays within the building, has shifted," says Mel Harding, president of Linmor Technologies (Ottawa, Ontario). "Now it's more like 50/50. Only half the traffic created or consumed originates in the building, and the rest goes outside, whether that's across the country or around the world." In the past, a company might have leased lines from its service provider to accommodate that outside traffic. By outsourcing that traffic to a carrier to handle via a VPN, the customer can pay only for the bandwidth it needs. In addition, as data networks become increasingly complex, many corporations are finding that it's simply easier to leverage the experience of their carriers rather than handle their networking in-house. "When the world is multiprotocol and complex, it's hard to imagine many companies taking that challenge on," says Karen Barton, vice president of marketing at Xedia Corp. (Littleton, Mass.). "In the end, they just want to run their business, and they want help from their service provider to be able to respond quickly and be competitive without having to build all that networking expertise in-house." Hanging onto control On the flip side, however, a VPN can mean a loss of control for the customer. "We believe that before VPNs take off in a big way, carriers have to provide network managers with the same level of control they have historically had in their private networks," says Paul Gustafson, president and CEO of Aptis Communications (Chelmsford, Mass.). "They want to be able to go into the network and look at the resources allocated to them, like they would in a private network." For one thing, customers want to make sure they're getting their money's worth, particularly as their networks become more mission-critical. If a company has contracted with a service provider for a specific amount of bandwidth or a certain quality of service, it wants some proof that it's getting what it paid for. Up until now, that proof has been provided with service level agreements, reports generated by the carrier that measure the level of service that has been provided. Service level agreements (SLAs) are based on four factors, says Judy Beningson, product marketing manager for Ascend (Westford, Mass.): Network availability (is the network available when I want to use it); Throughput (what sort of data rates am I getting); Delay (what's happening to the bandwidth); and Utilization (how much bandwidth is actually being used). Traditionally, those SLAs have been mailed to customers on a monthly basis in the form of a printout. An alternative has been sending the report over the Internet using the file transfer protocol to the customer, who would then print it out. In both cases, the end user is faced with hundreds of pages of printed materials, making it difficult to extract any trending information, Harding says. "The idea of even looking at that kind of monstrous printout, let alone correlating information from various sections of it, is inconceivable," he says. Another option is having the carrier set up a workstation at the customer site to provide on-demand access to network statistics. It's a step up from a printed report, but still a fairly expensive and inefficient method, Beningson says. "It requires training the customer so he knows what he's looking at, distributing and upgrading software-it's such an awkward way to do it," she says. "It's also an expensive enough solution that carriers are only willing to do it for really big customers." But more and more customers are demanding that kind of network information, Beningson says. "I don't think that service providers realized that service level agreements were going to be so important to their customers," she says. "More and more, they're seeing RFPs for large data networks include the mandatory requirement that there is not only an SLA, but also tangible proof that it has been met." Part of this demand is due to the fact that the performance of a company's network can have a major effect on its bottom line. "The average network environment is becoming more important to that company's business," says Ed Nalbandian, senior vice president for management network solutions at AT&T (New York). "More strategic networking initiatives are starting in the boardrooms of companies, so it's important for those customers to see how their network is doing and get some guarantees." A new class of customer Adding to the carriers' headache is the fact that increasingly network-savvy customers aren't satisfied with receiving paper printouts anymore. The postal model or hand delivery by an account representative-complete with an explanation if the service quality fell below an acceptable level-is likely to be unacceptable to a company whose business depends on its network. Customers want graphical representations of their data, they want to be able to call up their service quality reports whenever they need them, and they even want the capability to actually see how their network is doing at any given time. "You're talking about high-end customers who are very technology-aware and are very comfortable using the Web, and that's absolutely the way they want to work," says Bob Copithorne, president and CEO of Clear Communications (Lincolnshire, Ill.). Which would seem to make using the Web for network management a no-brainer. For one thing, providing Web access to service level agreements and network management capabilities eliminates the need for complicated software and expensive workstations (Figure 2). "The Web allows the customer to view his information from whatever access point he chooses, whether that's a personal computer at home or a portable computer being carried around by a technician in the field," says Steve Barnhart, vice president of marketing and sales for ISR Global Telecom (Maitland, Fla.). "You have a ubiquitous view of the information because you're not tied to a terminal or a specific computer. All you need is Internet access and a browser." On the carrier side, using the Web as a network management tool can save money, since the service provider does not need to distribute and regularly update software. It also enables the carrier to differentiate its service as competition heats up. "From a competitive perspective, if there are three carriers you can subscribe to, whether they can give you more value-added options such as these network management capabilities could affect which one you choose," Boursin says. "Consumers are demanding more capabilities from their telecommunications and information technology service provider, and a Web-based environment gives the operator the capability provide those capabilities, as well as customize the environment for the end user." Slow on the uptake The majority of the large network management vendors either already have Web capabilities incorporated into their product or are planning to include it in their next release. However, they say sadly, only a handful of their customers are actually taking advantage of that feature. "I would dare say that there is very little Web management capability available today," ISR's Barnhart says. "I don't believe that many service providers are very far along at all in this area, particularly the regional Bell operating companies, because they're focusing their energies on meeting the requirements to get into the interexchange business." And with competition in most local telephone markets still fairly minimal, the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) may be feeling the push to offer value-added services such as Web-based network management. Linmor's Harding notes that most implementations of network management over the Web have been done by interexchange carriers. "At the regional Bell level, there's not much competition there, and they don't really have to do it if they don't feel like it," he says. The reasons that service providers might be less than amenable to allowing Web access to their network management systems vary. For one thing, offering such capabilities would mark an enormous shift in mindset for the incumbent carriers, says Craig Johnson, principal analyst at Current Analysis (San Jose, Calif.). "It's opening the kimono," Johnson says. "They're selling a service and giving a guarantee. Until now the customers have just had to believe them, but giving the customers the potential ability to monitor that guarantee puts the carriers in a much riskier position. It could mean money out of their pocket if problems occur." But the carriers' hesitation isn't just in their heads. The legacy systems of most incumbent service providers makes providing this capability somewhat more difficult than installing special software. Clear's Copithorne compares the ILECs' dilemma to that of Federal Express when it began offering its customers the ability to track packages. "Before Federal Express could let their customers track packages from their PCs, they had to be able to track the packages from a PC themselves," Copithorne says. "There's a whole lot of things in the back office that have to be done to set the stage before you can offer something like Web access." In the ILECs' case, those things include modifying legacy operations support systems (OSSs) to interface with the Web-based network management system. "We're talking about OSSs that aren't extremely flexible and also not easily replaced," ISR's Barnhart says. "They're historically large mainframes, with software that was developed maybe 10 or 20 years ago. When these systems were put into place, no one was thinking about enhanced services such as providing individual customer views because there was just one phone company." Nor is the situation much better among other service providers. Internet service providers (ISPs) may have newer back office systems, but lack carrier-class OSSs that let telcos provision, bill and troubleshoot services, Current Analysis's Johnson says. Running a tight ship Finally, security concerns may be the biggest reasons that carrier's haven't embraced Web-based network management capabilities. Carriers fear that by providing their customers with a view into their network management systems, they may be inadvertently providing them a gateway into their other back office systems. "Service providers have to deal with the security of their networks," says Ascend's Beningson. "The service provider says, `I don't want my customers to go into a different OSS that I have running and do something stupid to screw up my life.' That's a real concern for them." Measures can be taken to prevent that from happening. Many of the network management solutions take advantage of the security incorporated into all standard browsers to protect the transmission of information between the carrier's system and the end user. Carriers can then set up firewalls between their OSSs to ensure that users can only access authorized areas. Finally, the carrier can partition the customer databases within its network management system to prevent one customer from accessing another's network information. Once again, the limitations of legacy systems come into play, says Bill Duncan, director of marketing at Hekimian (Rockville, Md.). "With some of the older systems, it's very hard to do that sort of partitioning," Duncan says. "They're not set up to do it, and it's a very expensive proposition to modify them. The capabilities are built into some of the newer OSSs, but many carriers don't have those." Raising the bar Between the technical constraints and traditional mindsets, providing customers with access to network management systems is not a pretty proposition for carriers. But as a first wave of service providers begins to make that capability available, the carriers that hold back are likely to feel the wrath of their customers. "On new technology, sometimes the pump has to be primed," says Clear's Copithorne. "Today you wouldn't think of not having an ATM card to get cash, but 15 years ago, if you'd never seen an ATM card, you might not think to ask for one. What's going on now is end users are seeing what's going to be possible, and they're getting very excited and asking their service provider, `Why can't we have this now?'" And while the first few carriers to provide Web-enabled network management may find it a valuable service differentiator, industry members expect that as more carriers come on board, the differentiator will become the granularity of the view-a daily or even real-time network status report, for example, vs. a weekly or monthly report. In addition, carriers are likely to expand the powers they're granting to the end user, such as allowing a company's network manager to self-provision a circuit. The upside for carriers in handing out that sort of power is that their customers will begin to think of them as partners, not just as service providers, says Xedia's Barton. "If the service provider puts customization and control in the hands of the customer, lets the customer have it his way, then that gives the customer the opportunity to view the carrier as a partner moving forward, which could clear the path for the carrier to offer that customer more value-added services," he says. "It's a little bit of work, but it could be a big payoff in the end." Back Copyright 1998 Advanstar Communications. Please send any technical comments or questions to the America's Network webmaster.

To: djane who wrote (47085)	5/18/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

3/1/98 America's Network on channel bonding 112K modems [Contains ASND quotes] Solid bond? Channel bonding promises cheap speed, but can the technology deliver in the real world? americasnetwork.com David Kopf Hurry up and wait." Not only is that expression the credo of Internet users, but it's the mantra of Internet service providers (ISPs) as well. While local exchange carriers (LECs) and cable TV (CATV) operators tentatively deploy asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL) and cable modem services, respectively, ISPs are left trying to satisfy users' insatiable appetite for bandwidth. Apart from 56 kbps modems, the only other high-speed alternative ISPs have to offer is integrated services digital networking (ISDN), a service that has acquired a (some say undeserved) bad reputation in the United States. So, since they don't control the facilities, ISPs and their subscribers have had to sit and wait for the newer, faster access technologies to come to them. However, ISPs might now have a chance to do something for themselves. Channel bonding, an established bandwidth-on-demand technology for ISDN, has been tweaked to bond twin 56 kbps analog modems for a potential 112 kbps throughput; something that could put a smile on the faces of ISPs and users. Bonding's beginnings Channel bonding isn't gleaming, new technology. In fact, it's been an ISDN offering for quite some time (hence the name "channel"). In channel bonding for an ISDN basic rate interface (BRI; 64 kbps) connection, when a call is initiated, it brings up the first B channel. Then based on a pre-definied bandwidth threshold (set by either the user or the ISP), a second B channel will be brought up. So users have either 64 kbps or double that, depending on what they need. "You pop up to that second connection or you pop back down if you're not using it," explains Kurt Bauer, vice president of access product management for Ascend Communications Inc. (Alameda, Calif.). "That value of it in the ISDN world has been that [the service provider] got paid for usage of that second B channel, so [users] don't want it up all the time if [they] don't need it." ISDN channel bonding can run all the time; however, that costs ISPs and users more money, Bauer says. Usually, channel bonding protocols are built on top of point-to-point protocol (PPP), using multilink protocol (MP) or an extension called "multilink protocol plus" (MP+), which was developed by Ascend, but is an open specification, according to Bauer. "The way PPP gets established, there is a single IP address per connection," Bauer continues. "If you want to bring up two lines using MP, then PPP says that you have to tear down the whole link to bring both of them up. That's not very nimble, and it's a lot of overhead. "What MP+ does is allow that second channel to be toggled without deconstructing the link on the first channel," Bauer says. "Before MP+, that was not possible. In order to turn up that second line, you'd have to drop that first line and then redial and bring them both up. It was really clunky." Also, without a smooth addition of a second line, real-time applications go out the window. "The whole user experience is `hurry up and wait,' " he says. "MP+ fixed that." Now, just change the modems Yet, ISDN isn't always easy for ISPs to offer, or for users to get. Not only can line qualification and service provisioning turn into an ordeal, but the prices aren't exactly what many home and small office users would call economical. Also, there can be a fear factor for non-technical users when installing an ISDN terminal adapter. "Many parts of the country and the world can't get ISDN service, or there are people who just don't want to deal with ISDN-it sounds complicated even though it's not, really," Bauer says. So, MP+ was adapted to perform the same kind of bonding, but with analog modem lines, rather than B channels (Figure 1). In a typical application, a user would have two analog lines connected to a dual-line modem (ideally, a 56 kbps device), which is connected to a PC via a serial line. Software on the PC is used to configure the modem with the traffic thresholds that signal channel bonding to begin. A user connects to the ISP; as the bandwidth he or she requires meets those thresholds, the second channel goes up. Figure 1: Ascend's analog modem channel bonding vs. ISDN channel bonding "Based on the traffic volume of the first link . you bring up the second link with the same IP address," Bauer says. "So you've got an aggregate throughput of 112 kbps, theoretically. It's fundamentally the same as what happens on the ISDN side. It's not as fast as ISDN will be, but it will definitely work." Also, analog channel bonding is speed-independent. It can work just as well with a v.34 modem as it can with a 56 kbps modem. "It's just more interesting when it's a 56K modem," Bauer says. "Then when we all upgrade to v.pcm [the International telecommunications union's new 56 kbps modem specification], we'll all be running with a unified spec." Can it deliver? Obviously, 112 kbps of throughput via two bonded 56 kbps modem lines is a "best of all cases" scenario. Law limits analog modems to 53 kbps, and outside noise, line taps and all the other hazards of copper plant ensure that results will greatly vary. The outcome is that running the copper gauntlet means that 56 kbps modems can't offer 56 kbps. Even at their best, they may be signficantly slower. The same holds true if they're bonded. "I think the best people have seen is around 48 kbps outside of laboratories," says Patrick Kloepfer, director of remote access services for GTE Internetworking (Cambridge, Mass.). "Typically you see around 40K to 42K." Beyond copper limitations, 56 kbps modems aren't symmetrical. At best, they offer 56 kbps downstream and 33.6 kbps upstream, he adds. Still, channel bonding for analog modems could provide benefits, Kloepfer says, especially if ISPs use it with 28.8 kbps or 33.6 kbps modems. "What would be interesting is if people said, `Hey, instead of doing 56K, which isn't giving us any better throughput, maybe we should just bond two 28.8s, which give good reliable throughput, and get a true 56,' " Kloepfer says. "The bonding of two 56Ks almost seems strange. If you're trying to get better throughput, you're almost better off justifying an ISDN circuit." Also, there are issues for ISDN channel bonding that Kloepfer says would most likely apply to bonding analog modem lines. For ISDN channel bonding to work, the caller, when establishing the new channel, must land on the same device for them to be bonded. In less populated areas, this may not be a problem, since statistically it's highly probable that a user's two calls will hit the same device. That doesn't ring true for urban areas. "If you're supporting New York, where you have 10,000 modems, that's 100 boxes of 100 modems, the statistical probability of you landing on the same box is 1%," Kloepfer explains. "So, effectively, you don't have a service offering bonded ISDN. I'm going to suspect that, for any new bonding system to work, it's going to have the same limitations. It must be on the same box for it to bond." Even if the statistcal probability of hitting the same box is one in three, two-thirds of the time users will be calling in to complain, Kloepfer says. With regard to the complexities of ISDN vs. analog modem channel bonding, Kloepfer questions whether, when users have to buy two analog lines (chances are, if users are savvy enough to want this speed, they'll be on their third) and configure their modems with specific traffic thresholds, there's no real difference between doing that and subscribing to ISDN services. "I think the answer you'll find is that ISDN can be more expensive," he says. "But maybe the solution is not to come up with alternative ways to busy out the nation's phone system even further. You'd be better off going to the phone companies and saying `make ISDN affordable.' " Don't write it off just yet Still, some ISPs see a reasonable business model for offering such a service. EarthLink Network (Pasadena, Calif.) is testing (on a board level) Diamond Multimedia System Inc.'s (Vancouver, Wash.) Shotgun technology, which is based on Ascend's MP+, according to Barry Friedman, EarthLink's director of product management. So far, the tests have yielded a dual-analog connection at 112 kbps and transfer rates constantly exceeding 80 kbps, Friedman says. The tests were conducted over a connection on public switched telephone network (PSTN) lines, which was dialed in long distance from Vancouver, Wash., to an access number in Southern California. EarthLink was set to begin internal testing by press time, and plans to conduct remote testing with various modem makers. EarthLink doesn't have to do much in the way of infrastructure upgrades to offer services. It just has to shake out the bugs, Friedman says. "We use Ascend MAX and TNT boxes, and basically all that changes on our end is a revision of the Ascend software that allows this to occur," he says. "There's no hardware changes on our part. There's a software upgrade, and obviously there's all sorts of production issues before you release new software under your production POPs [points of presence]." Also, EarthLink will have to ensure that its backbone providers (EarthLink doesn't own its own backbone outside of California) can support the technology. At least one of the providers will have to join the testing, Friedman notes. Apart from the rigors of testing, Friedman doesn't see nearly as bleak a deployment scenario as Kloepfer expects. As far as the demands channel bonding places on POPs, the impact of having users taking up additional ports isn't easy to pinpoint, he says. Obviously, when users are channel bonding, they are using two ports, but they will most likely have far shorter Internet sessions. "[Channel bonding] takes two ports, absolutely," Friedman says. "When you run out of ports, you run out of ports. You don't achieve the second connection. The bigger issue, is if I have 10 ports and eight people connecting at 28.8 to download 4-megabyte files, would they not be better served if they connected dual-channel at 80 kbps, downloaded those files and logged off, freeing up those ports quicker?" Also, a bonded connection isn't constant; it becomes active once a threshold is met. Based on EarthLink's experiences with ISDN users (who usually subscribe to a certain number of channel hours) subscribers generally stay under their time allotment for bonding to avoid paying additional fees, Friedman says. Earthlink will price its dual 56 kbps service between an unlimited access dial-up account ($19.95) and an ISDN account ($34.95 for 100 channel hours with 99 cents for each additional), according to Friedman. "I'm looking at something around $29 a month with 100 channel hours," he says. "You're paying a $10 premium for the ability to bond two channels. If users find that they need the bandwidth and the time, we'll charge them a surcharge to do that, because at that point it really does start to impact my ability to manage my POPs." Shelf-life Assuming that channel bonding is a viable option, ISPs must also consider its staying power. Can bonded analog modem lines compete with the likes of ADSL and cable modems as those technologies become real services? "We already sell cable product, and that is a very viable business and consumer offering where it's available," Friedman says. "We're doing DSL trials right now. I see dual 56K as a viable technology, especially for small businesses that already have two phone lines installed. The modems that are shipping have the same logic as terminal adapters, so they have bandwidth-on-demand capabilities. They won't tie up both lines and result in a busy signal. People won't have to order an ISDN line and all the confusion people think is associated with that." Also, if copper lines are bad, such as in a remote rural area, and 56 kbps service is but a dream, Friedman sees Kloepfer's scenario of bonding 36.6 kbps or 28.8 kbps modems as a viable service offering and a worthy competitor to ISDN BRI service, which may not even be able to reach that customer. Friedman is optimistic. "There's more of a market for dual 56K than there ever was on ISDN or there ever will be-on the short run-for DSL or cable modems." Back Copyright 1998 Advanstar Communications. Please send any technical comments or questions to the America's Network webmaster.

To: djane who wrote (47085)	5/18/1998 8:49:00 PM
From: djane	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 61433

Forbes article. Lucent in the Way and IP Revolution forbes.com By Jeffrey Young If you believe what the analysts say, San Jose-based Cisco Systems (CSCO) is set to dominate the future of networking. The only company squarely in the way of Cisco is Lucent Technologies (LU), the AT&T spinoff that incorporates most of the equipment manufacturing side of the former company, as well as the crown research jewel, Bell Labs, with 100 years of captive experience. (Click here for more on the Lucent/Cisco rivalry.) Since Lucent was set free Oct. 1, 1996, it has seen a fast runup in its stock price. In the past 12 months Lucent's stock has risen 116%. For all its vaunted Bell Labs connection, Lucent faces the new challenge of Internet protocol. It will need every penny to be competitive. Lucent's key strengths today include: essential knowledge in optical wave division multiplexing where it was one of the inventors of key technology, and is still one of the market leaders; a strong set of products for wireless infrastructure and carrier gear, the fastest growing sector of telecommunications (and a big opportunity as Motorola stumbles); a leadership position in voice PBXs and related premises equipment; ditto for big, and small, carrier circuit switches; and economic clout enough to offer very attractive financing to cash-strapped service providers if it wants. For all its vaunted Bell Labs connection, Lucent faces a new challenge: that of Internet protocol (IP). Critics warn that the kind of cerebral and reflective pace that brought about the invention of the transistor, lasers and optical transmission gear is unsuitable in the new frenzied environment. The market is coalescing so fast that there is little time to dither, no time to make mistakes, barely any room to maneuver. Seize the moment \| top \| ________________________________________________________________ IP revolution By Jeffrey Young Telecommunications market will topsy-turvy in the next few years for the simple reason that most telephone traffic of all kinds is going to be delivered over the Internet, or Internet-like networks that make use of the robust Internet protocol (IP) to move everything from your call to the Home Shopping Network to the video on your television. Internet protocol (IP) is far-and-away the best way to send data around because it is simple, ubiquitous, will work at whatever speed the connection supports, and can go at varying speeds along its route. This last factor is crucial to the swift uptake of the Internet, and the future demise of the phone networks. No longer is a highly specified, highly controlled end-to-end telco-maintained pipe required. IP data works better in that world, but it does just fine in a heterogenous, chaotic, ever-changing network of peers, too. The prime example is the Internet. Fax and E-mail already start out as data, and get converted into not-quite-as-good signals for the voice world; voice mail is almost always manipulated and stored by a computer. Add web browsing and surfing, and E-commerce as it starts to finally catch on and the world turns upside down. By some estimates as much as three-quarters of all telephone traffic now could already be more easily handled as data. Today it increasingly makes sense to pass everything as data and strip out the voice, which will feed a joint voice/IP gateway equipment market for a while. But then it will all be data from end to end. Here's how to see what's at stake: Twenty years ago there were 100 million E-mails sent each year, versus 135 billion pieces of first class mail. Last year the two reached parity: about 190 billion each. Many of those E-mail messages would have been voice calls without the Internet. Imagine a minute each, at 15 cents a minute, and that is $20 billion in lost voice revenue due directly to today's data networks. Forbes Front Page \| Forbes Magazine \| The Toolbox Sitemap \| Help \| Search \| Webmaster c 1998 Forbes Inc. Terms, Conditions and Notices