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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dreydoc who wrote (17393)	10/1/1998 9:43:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77399

dreydoc, Thanks for the comment and the acknowledgement. I appreciate it. Re: this matter of free voice over IP... I think we confuse free voice telephony with that of free speech, sometimes. Sounds like the All-American thing to do and all, but no one works for free. Leastwise, when they are providing what some pundits have termed "niche" services. Sidgmore of MCI WorldCom (formerly UUNet) says that voice will be insignificant, less than one percent of the total of all flows eventually. He's probably right. But that statement does not speak to the economics of managing humongous labeled flows consisting primarily of time insensitive (relatively speaking) data flows, versus the handling of discrete voice sessions which are time sensitive, and which are far smaller in size, which, according to these arguments, would render them uneconomical. Chambers of Cisco says that it is nothing but ketchup on the hamburger, implying that it is slated to be classified in a group of services which transcend commodity status. Another eye-opening remark which makes its round at the water cooler, and gets propagated throughout the press by authors in search for controversial subject matter, implying its freeness over time. Well, if it is already a commodity which is headed for niche status, then I submit that something is wrong with this picture. The two modifiers are at odds with each other from the get-go. Especially if the implied, or directly-stated, eventual outcome is cost-free voice. Since when do niches, which ordinarily evade any and all economies of scale, come at a cost to providers that can be passed along for free? By definition, niches require special handling. And as such, they become a nuisance and require an inordinate amount of personnel and other resources to manage, in comparison to the larger flows of the business, when viewed at the per unit level. Nuisances do not get provided to consumers for free. In fact, they cost extra. I don't want to belabor this point here right now because I'm short on time. And I am in full agreement that the costs associated with providing voice services will continue to go south for some time to come. I only want to point out that the hyperbole surrounding new technologies often leads to pundits using words which don't fit the scenarios, because in fact they often don't fully understand all of the implications of those scenarios. And then they paint themselves into corners and find themselves having to support their mis-chosen words. It's not the direction of costs I'm disputing here, it's the rationales and the explanations we (are almost forced to) listen to every day that are flawed. I welcome comments. Regards, Frank Coluccio