OT - Academic discussion
Hi Eric,
>>I've worked in these fields for over 30 years and know a gem when I see one.<<
Here are just some of my thoughts to keep the fire burning on this cold and damp Saturday afternoon, in Brooklyn. In the case of staying power [over 30 years of industry observations], and some of your other points, I share some of your views, but not entirely. Let me introduce some others.
>>[I] know a gem when I see one.<<
Every real gem has a normalized half-life factor associated with it, the time it takes for 1/2 of the material to decay. It's relatively easy to back into the half life of the PSTN, if we assume that it will be entirely transformed in, say, ten years time.
Time acceleration would indicate that the longevity of the current Internet model will be somewhat shorter than that of the PSTN's. At least that is what Heidi and Alvin Toffler would have us believe in their future shock and third wave treatments.
Perhaps CSCO and others may defy these generalizations which call for massive disruptions, by undergoing a form of graceful mutation, instead. That appears to be their strategy, in any event, but just how to manage such a migration without renouncing previous strong points, successfully, will be key, I would think, if they want to maintain mind share.
If we view the only other framework during the history of modern telecomms and data communications to have lasted long enough to be the model against which all others are compared, then we have to take into account, at least on some level of discussion, and examine, the PSTN.
The telephone system, especially here in the USA, is still, despite the grunts and groans of net-heads who use it each day, "the" formidable mainstay to beat. It continues to be the workhorse that serves us best for many critical services in a much broader sense, than the Internet, still. I'm not referring to point solutions, rather, the way we conduct our lives, both at business and at home.
The PSTN is not going anywhere during the foreseeable future, in fact it's actually growing as we type - ironically, in many ways that are directly attributable to the Internet. The Internet, in contrast, is gradually increasing its footing, while the preparing to eventually replace [more likely, transform] the PSTN.
In order to replace it, the 'net must first merge or harmonize with the PSTN, before it can morph to the point where it overtakes it entirely. The first stage could take x years, some say four or five, before a significant dent is made, and the overall journey may take an additional five, or more. Human behavioral patterns and service-provider depreciation schedules are some of the primary drivers here, not to mention technological barriers in the broader sense of international interoperability.
In the process, the Internet is changing in personality from one that was based on egalitarian precepts, and interactive inquiry-response, email, etc., to one which must now out-perform the PSTN at its own game. Most of those attributes are now well understood, so I wont further bore anyone by getting into them here.
At the same time, the 'net will be introducing enhancements and features which the PSTN could never have been called upon to deliver in the first place. That was, in fact, among the primary motivations behind the creation of the ATM model, by folks who understood only too well the performance parameters and demands that would be involved.
CSCO's 'net (I think we can rightfully call it that, on some level), in the end, is an ever-changing landscape which is constantly assimilating aspects and attributes from other, competing models all the time, not the least of which can be traced to the parameters that define ATM. At some point, IMO, it will have acquired more foreign constructs than those on which it was originally founded. This will, at some point, make for a strange backdrop against which to hold an argument, if that argument is to be based on the same theological tenets as the ones that have prevailed to this date, alone.
At some point one has to wonder if CSCO or any other company that has made its hay on IP technologies of the original order are the same companies, delivering the same products under the same set of rules, for which it has gained their reputation. Or, have they changed their profiles to resemble a collage of the capabilities of all of their combined competitors, each of whom excelled in their own and differing ways, from the start?.
And can they do that gracefully enough to maintain their hegemony, without yielding significant ground in both mind- and market- shares in the process?
Toss me another log...
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
