LD telecoms

Post #46,676 by boxley 7/24/02 6:47:42 AM Reply	LD telecoms There will be a shakeout. Costs have gone up and competition has driven prices to below 10 cents a minute. Will make the wholesale PC manufacturing business look like a good business model. The debt load that was used to consolidate and grow is what killed worldcomm regardless of the accounting mischief. Most LD carrires are waaay over leveaged. Look at some cash cows to pick up the circuits and the business at deep discounts from the bankrupcy courts. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #46,794 by gdaustin 7/24/02 11:34:59 PM Reply	What's killing technology and telecom... Is that companies spent too much buying other companies in the go-go years. MCI/Worldcomm bought UUNet for billions. Basically, tech and telecom have experienced a 10x decline (most companies are worth about 10% of what they were worth in 2000). As a telecom (MCI/WC), if you bought a 3-4 billion dollar ISP, took out a bunch of debt, spent money to attempt to merge the operations (or just spent the money), then the market declines, you're left with a bunch of debt and not a lot of ways to service it. The money making models aren't in telecom, but in pay-per-use services (auctions, online travel, online stores) as the models of Amazon, eBay, Expedia, Travelocity, etc. are starting to prove. The way out of the morass for telecoms is to find salable per transaction services and sell them. More and more stuff will be pay as you go, except for a few advertising model successes like Google and Yahoo. But there has to be 10 pay as you go services for every 1 ad model. (You need 10 million or more hits a month just to be "marginally" in the ad game.) So, what we're left with is, "how many REAL business models are left". Prepaid phone cards are one, I think. The Wall St. Journal will make money charging $5-10 a month for access. Information formerly published in books or through the government ( like NADA, First DataBank, PublicData.com, etc.) will make money. Selling stuff online will work with a high quality site (eBay, Amazon). And I think there are some other subscriber and pay as you go Internet models that can be built successfully. But, right now you'll have to do it on Open Source and ingenuity, and a lot of patience and not a lot of investment capital. Glen Austin
Post #46,809 by tuberculosis 7/25/02 5:30:10 AM Reply	Not sure I agree with all of it Certainly they're all overleveraged. No doubt about it. But this begs the question: Why exactly can't the telco's make money providing infrastructure/connectivity as service? Why do they have to provide per-transaction services? The inside joke at MCI was that the letters stood for Money Coming In. The phone companies have a relationship with their customers that MS would kill for - a stable recurring revenue stream. At least the LECs do and the long distance companies could too if they wanted to offer that pricing model. AT&T already does it with their OneRate cell phone service. I get a phone - it works everywhere in the US and every US number costs that same amount to call. Awesome. I love it. Add continuous broadband internet access and I'm in heaven and you can have $100 per month. As long as the cost is constant and reasonable and I'm connected I'm happy. I hate surprise phone bills. The month my dad died and I was on my POS Sprint PCI drop-every-call-after-5-minutes-roaming-charges-are-us cell phone updating the rest of the family around the US I got a surprise over use phone bill of $600. I hate that shit. They could offer service that we want at prices we want. Or they can remain in their deer in the headlights posture like they've been doing for the last 10 years. Too frightened to lead the industry for fear of making the wrong decision. The phone companies are suffering from a lack of vision and intestinal fortitude. Their offerings are lame. No wonder they're in trouble. (Small example - USWest had DSL working in the lab as a demo in 1991. They didn't get it to market until 1998. Why? "We're not sure people will pay money for it." Well give it a try you morons. How else might you find out?) I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,918 by inthane-chan 7/25/02 8:51:33 PM Reply	Ulterior motive. They didn't want competition for their (much more profitable) T-1 market. Then, once the Telecommunications act passed in '96, they stonewalled as much as they could to keep competitors out of their markets... Side note: Locally, QWorst (Damn, I miss Useless Worst...) has recently gotten the go-ahead from the state Utility commission to offer long-distance service. This despite the fact that their service still sucks, AND they haven't been expanding their DSL offerings at all. There are 10 types of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Post #46,948 by gdaustin 7/26/02 12:04:13 AM Reply	Why Telcos Can't Make a Profit Some issues here: 1. It costs more than $19-29 a month to provide reliable high-speed Internet service. Much of the problem was that many neighborhood wiring plants had to be redone or rebuilt to support DSL. Cable was a much better choice, but even people like @home did incredibly dumb things like buying Excite ( a search engine company ) in hopes of building a portal like Yahoo. In the end, Excite/@home was bankrupt. 2. Part of the problem was Long Distance competition. Good for consumers, bad for profits (and telcos). The money that was supposed to fund the build-out was those fat 20 cent a minute long distance plans, then 15, then 10. Now, at 5 cents, Long Distance can't even make a profit. 3. I still bitch that corporate executives are vampires. They suck the lifeblood out of the company, taking huge ransoms in their compensation packages. Add the greed and the Internet dot.com bubble and you have a recipe for disaster (like we have now). Cap executive compensation at $2 million per year. No stock options may be sold until 1 year after the executive departs. Finally, a secondary cap should be applied to executive compensation that he/she can make no more than 100 times the hourly pay of the lowest paid employee (including foreign subsidiaries ). So, if the guy in Bangladesh is making $1 an hour, then the executive can make a maximum of $100 an hour (or about $200,000 a year, based on a 2000 hour work year). Compensation above $2 million a year should be taxed at 80%. 4. Maneuvering by the Baby Bells. With their local phone service as a regulated and secure form of income, they were able to stall the adoption of DSL to homes and small businesses until cable modems showed up on the horizon. Experienced in legal wrangling and heavy with high compensation management, they're the only part of the business still making money. AND, they will own the Internet soon, and raise the price. SBC and BellSouth are the new monopolies. DSL/Cable Modems will be $100 a month. 5. There's a convergence going on between voice and data. Nortel, Lucent, Alcatel, and Ericsson used to make these neat phone switch boxes costing $2 million with a $40,000 a year service contract. Nice business if you can get it. With soft switches, a $50,000 Sun server with another $200,000 of software/custom boards (or less) can do a better job. The days of million dollar switches are gone. IP telephone, VOIP, etc. will rewrite the phone system. It used to be that we thought of our data network riding on a phone network, but more and more, our phone system is really a data network with realtime QOS (quality of service). Telco equipment companies are imploding on this reality. 6. The economics of fiber optics and improvements in the data carrying capabilities of copper caused the cost of carrying voice and data to collapse. The collapse of these costs forced the lowering of commercial data rates. Yet, the cost of maintaining the network soared, to the point where now the people cost more than the fiber. (A lot more!) My thoughts, Glen Austin
Post #46,959 by JayMehaffey 7/26/02 1:34:27 AM Reply	More reasons 1. Poor and outdated internal process. This isn't so bad for the new comers like Sprint but the old companies, AT&T and the Baby Bells are all overloaded with managers and internal paperwork. I'm close enough to the internal billing process of one of these companies, close enough to know that they really have no idea how much they are selling on a month to month basis. 2. Buisness models built around being bought are also a horrible problem. During the bubble there where a huge number of companies that more or less set out to be bought as a buisness plan. This doesn't sound bad until you realize that the way to be bought is to drive down the selling price of the company. It may seem stupid to do that since the executives are driving down their own stock at the same time, but they know they will get a huge cash payment to go away after the sale. This lead to companies running up debt and other stupid stuff just to drive down the value of the company. 3. Buisness plans built around getting a monopoly, not competing in the current market. This is the problem that kills airlines all the time. Everybody is selling at below cost in an attempt to get a strangle hold, at which point they can jack up prices freely. But everybody bleeds until they get the monopoly. 4. Buisness plans built around regulation, legislation and lawsuits, not selling what the customer wants. Why sell what they customer wants when you can leave him no choice but buy what you are offering. This sounds good but it tends not to work until you actually have a strong monopoly. 5. Aversion to 'wasting' money on hardware improvements that can be 'better' used to do flashy and expensive things like buy other companies. The more often the CEO can get in the press the better. 6. Failure to plan ahead. It's been obvious for at least 10 years know that a high speed, digital network was the way to go. But laying the ground work would mean making investments that wouldn't pay off for a long, long time and nobody is willing to do that when maximizing the profits over the next 3 months is the goal. Jay
Post #47,082 by orion 7/26/02 4:54:21 PM Reply	The best that they can do is offer a package. Long Distance, Wireless, DSL/Broadband, etc. Many Baby Bells are doing this already. They hope that it will evetually average out and they make a profit out of it. Hidden expenses of DSL, it costs more than the electrical power of a Redback router, someone has to pay for the tech support to answer the phone lines. They usually contract this out to another company not associated with the Baby Bell but paid to answer the phone lines. I know because I did this for a month for one of the contractors. They get two or three weeks of training and then hit the floor running answering the DSL Help Lines. Most of the calls are for bungled Installs, or people trying to connect to the DSL before their due-date and wondering why they aren't getting Synch. They also need to pay for someone to monitor the Red Backs and then the DSLAM to make sure they are working. Also for the Contractors to come out to the house and install the line and equipment. They are also doing upgrades in many areas, a lot of the phone lines are so old that they haven't been replaced since Al Bell and Dr. Watson put them up. A lot of orange wires are being put into the area where my parents live, and they are being told that DSL is available for their area now. So it costs millions to put in that orange wire to get more neighborhoods DSL ready. They hope it will pay off if they can get a majority of people to buy a package from them for DSL, Wireless Phones, Long Distance, etc for a few years or so. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #47,134 by boxley 7/26/02 11:57:03 PM Reply	softswitched with class 5 features There has only been one true class 5 softswitch sold. A 250k sun ft1800 with markup 1.5 mill software from terrabridge 350k plus a hug service agreement but still under the 5mill cost of a "real" class 5 switch. The offering is not being sold anymore, no takers only clecs and the last one 2nd Century communications nose dived. I know i was the lead cs engineer on the product. Many of the other switches being sold are departmental, the ones that claim to replace telco switches dont even com close to what we had. dge routing is the future, Unisphere 7500's are the future, cisco if they dont catch up will be left in the dust. edback cisco solution max out the ports and buy another redback/cisco. A unisphere means installing another "virtual" router shareing the same hardware. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #47,184 by gdaustin 7/27/02 12:12:05 PM Reply	How many companies need a Class 5 phone switch? Maybe CLEC's or RBOC's, but certainly not small-mid sized companies. Another problem I think occurred in the telco industry is that with competition, all companies acted as if they were going to be taking over the service of RBOC's. In the end, they didn't. The market size didn't grow that much, and basically all the new companies were just competing for the same customers (and buying redundant equipment ). I'm in a small 60-person company. We have a 100 port phone switch we bought from AT&T (before it was Lucent). We are growing and need a new phone switch, but the vendors visiting us are quoting $50,000 for the (switch, handsets, wiring, voicemail setup, phone display configuration, long distance tracking codes, etc. etc.) whole package. My boss wants to pay $10K or less. We need to probably buy to expand us to about 300-500 phone capacity, but we're only going to be using 120-150 ports now. I think we actually have about 20 real incoming lines. The rest is done through the "magic" of multiplexing. What I wondered is why some smaller telco manufacturers don't make S100 or PCI cards for Sun or NT boxes which connect to a phone patch panel, then provide the service through a "standard" server like a Sun e250 or e450. If you have a big company (1000 phones), then you purchase a 3500 or 4500, or maybe even an e10K. The software in the system runs voice mail, displays for handsets, etc. It still seems that business phone service is really a "racket", to sell really cheap equipment very expensively. One of my neighbors installed a phone system about 5 years ago, and it's a 386 Intel Unixware box from AT&T. He is ashamed to even admit it. Maybe the small furry mammals in the telco industy are making the dinosaurs extinct? I wonder if these small furry mammals have stock? Glen Austin
Post #47,195 by ben_tilly 7/27/02 2:33:36 PM Reply	This reminds me of a book I need to post in Reviews... because it is excellent. The book is [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0066620694/002-5025397-1904017\|The Innovator's Dilemma] by Clayton Christensen. The thesis is that there are two basic kinds of innovations. The first is a sustaining innovation, by which he means an innovation which makes a product better at what it already does. He calls this sustaining because existing companies have no problem understanding the value of the innovation and reacting appropriately, no matter how drastically they have to redesign their businesses to do it. The other is a disruptive innovation, and that means an innovation that makes a product which is unable to meet the minimum needs of the existing market but which can be expected to do so in good time. He named them that because they tend to destory existing dominant companies and replace them with new ones. The reasons why disruptive innovations - even ones where the CEOs of existing companies recognize the risk, consistently destroy companies are complex and fundamental to how businesses work. I would say more about it but the book costs under $10, and I think it is better to read it than listen to a bad summary from me. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #47,256 by static 7/28/02 9:15:15 AM Reply	I don't think it's that simple. I heard the edges of several discussions when I was friendly with a comms technician in a previous job. 1. The PABX we used was physically very impressive: certainly much much bigger than our IBM mainframe. But it was probably the most reliable piece of computing equipment we owned. As far as I could tell, phone problems were almost always configuration issues. 2. We acquired some hardware for doing VR stuff with some NT boxes because the PABX cards were hideously expensive. I don't know how much cheaper the NT cards were but the software was terribly buggy and it took some herculean efforts on both NT and comms techs to get it all working okay-ish. This included several driver and software upgrades. I'm not surprised about your neighbour's 386, Unixware PABX. I bet it's extremely reliable, isn't it? Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #47,263 by ben_tilly 7/28/02 10:05:48 AM Reply	It IS that simple I already gave a book recommend for The Innovator's Dilemma. Read it. There is an inherent pressure on companies to move upscale, and overdeliver what their market needs. There is little doubt that they are delivering a better product for the extra money, but when you get ahead of your customers, you are vulnerable to customers going elsewhere. However there is also an inherent myopia towards losing these customers because the customers that you are losing are always the ones who were the least profitable to work with. You could only sell them your most basic product line (because they didn't need more), and besides which that line has come under pricing pressure from really poor-quality toy solutions that don't work in the real world. Why just think of ____ (our best customer) trying to get their job done with that crap! And there lies the trouble. The unreliable piece of shit will someday be reliable enough for most people's needs. Including your star customer. As long as it improves faster than your customer's wants do, you are progressing very nicely along an evolutionary dead-end. And you will get there by always listening to and trying to respond to your best customers. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #47,279 by Ashton 7/28/02 4:19:16 PM Reply	Peter Principle in hardware? Develop to your level of incompetence: build beyond need.
Post #47,280 by Ashton 7/28/02 4:20:52 PM Reply	LRPD: Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?:\ufffd
Post #47,285 by Brandioch 7/28/02 5:22:57 PM Reply	Unstated assumptions. But doesn't that assume that the needs of your customers will not change? The simple fact is that, eventually, all technology will become a commodity. If the company is not busy ACTIVELY reducing the price of their current offering, then they will be eaten by the company that is ACTIVELY improving the stability of their product. Product A starts off with a high price point and high reliability/functionality. -vs- Product B with a low price point and low reliability/functionality. If the manufacturer of A wants to stay in business long term, then said manufacturer needs to: #1. Add new features that customers cannot live without. #2. Drop their price point. #3. Buy out the competition. #4. Get laws passed to protect their market. The manufacturer of B has the same #3 and #4, but varies on #1 & #2. #1. Add the missing features that product A has. #2. Accomplish #1, #3 and/or #4 without increasing their unit price. I have no sympathy for anyone complaining about this. This is what COMPETITION means. Better products for less money.
Post #47,289 by ben_tilly 7/28/02 7:01:58 PM Reply	It is not about complaining It is about the periodic wiping out of entire industries and most of the companies in them. Even when the CEOs of said companies know damned well what is happening and actively trying to resist. While I know how prone you are to considering everyone else stupid, there really is something more than simple stupidity going on here. And if you care to read the book in question first, I would be willing to discuss it with you. But not until because I don't see the point until you have read a dozen case histories where firms wound up annihilated by technologies that they knew about, which they tried to proactively address, and the reasons why they couldn't succeed. But I won't bother until you have actually read it because your oversimplifying tendancy means that you don't currently have a clue WTF I mean by things like, "The value network a company finds itself embedded in defines its abilities and disabilities." Or, "Organizations need to be appropriately sized to their opportunities." (Both principles being critical for why CEOs who know damned well what they need their companies to do still don't succeed.) Cheers, Ben PS Your items 1 and 2 for the established companies are sheer suicide. I know that they seem reasonable, but if you understand the dynamics at work, that is how you cut your throat. A hint. People who you can actually find new needs to satisfy are not the customers you are about to lose, and adding features raises costs so that you have not a hope of competing on price. (However every time you do that you manage to increase revenues and look like a genius, right until your company self-destructs.) "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #47,290 by Brandioch 7/28/02 7:38:20 PM Reply	Understand that nothing goes on forever. It is about the periodic wiping out of entire industries and most of the companies in them. Nothing lasts forever. Old industries are replaced by new industries. But not until because I don't see the point until you have read a dozen case histories where firms wound up annihilated by technologies that they knew about, which they tried to proactively address, and the reasons why they couldn't succeed. Look around. We have real world examples happening right now. Again, technology tends toward commoditization (if that is a word). The market you have today, will not be around forever. Understand the cycle. I should have put "or" between those numbers. They do not depend upon each other. I'll read the book. When the library gets it. I've read way too many books on business cycles and disruptive technologies and commodities and TQA and six sigma and so forth. To put it in simple terms, nothing lives forever. One day, your product or company or market or industry will die and/or be replaced by the new product or company or market or industry. What's the best you can do with your product and company in your market / industry before one or more of them die? And do you have an exit strategy? Now, I'll see how (or if) my views change after reading that book.
Post #47,291 by ben_tilly 7/28/02 8:03:10 PM Reply	Of course we have real-world examples Lots of them. Two examples that come to mind are Sun and Microsoft. That is why I found the book interesting. Because it helped me understand something that I had seen, had seen commented on, but which I hadn't understood. Which is why well-funded companies run by intelligent people who undoubtable see how it is all bound to end are consistently unable to avoid becoming roadkill. Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #47,300 by Brandioch 7/29/02 1:27:44 AM Reply	How many weight lifters win the 100m dash? They see it. They understand the impact. But they are designed and optimized for one specific approach. Theoretically, there will be an inflection point. If they could see that... -and- CORRECTLY predict the new market -and- CORRECTLY re-structure their company -then- They could succeed in the new market. The problem is that while it is possible to see the change coming, it is very difficult to predict what the new market will be like. Real world example: MS vs Linux. The changes (there are a few) are already hitting us. We know that the old approach will no longer be viable (for a number of reasons) in the new market. But no one (except IBM?) has been able to put together a company that can exploit the new market (translation: turn a reliable profit). Once the changes have swept over us and the old approach is dead, many new approaches will be tried (and many will fail). Eventually, someone will formulate an approach and a structure that will extract a reliable profit from the new market. In hindsight, this will be "obvious". :) But, during the change, people are still trained to think in the old modes. They still see things as they were BEFORE the change. They are trying to fit the NEW model to their OLD model and they're getting confused by the bits that don't fit. :) Explaining it is simple. Being able to exploit it or giving advice on how to exploit it is hard. :) Again, MS vs Linux. I think the new model will REQUIRE Internet access to centralized databases but de-centralized distribution points. You won't pay for the software, but you'll pay for the service to keep updated. Nickel and dime them. Internet access is the key. Without that, you don't need to stay current. But everyone will be connected because other things they do will require it. So everyone will need to stay current. Give away the shaver and sell the blades. Cheaply. So cheaply that people won't even blink when charged. Compare that to the current system of selling the original package for hundreds or thousands of dollars and then planning to do the same in a few years (upgrades). And that's why they're road kill. That big of a change simply does not happen in companies. MS is attempting it, though. Bill Gates is a marketing genius (despite his other flaws). But they will fail. The new approach does not generate the revenues that the old approach did. Not yet. Maybe not ever. Thought exercise. Suppose MS, on Monday, announced that all versions of Windows would be $10 (per mac address). And for that price, you'd get 1 year of free updates. You could install whatever version of Windows you wanted and have the latest security patches. For another $10 (per mac address), you could install whatever version of MSOffice you wanted (and have free updates for a year). Of course, the file formats would change once a year. And MS would even sell you a caching server if you wanted one. What would that do to their company short term and long term? And that is what it means to be able to see the inflection point and to be able to predict the future market and how to exploit it. Road kill happens because the weight lifter cannot become a runner over night.
Post #47,415 by ben_tilly 7/29/02 9:37:48 PM 7/30/02 6:34:59 AM Reply	Do you ever stop thinking that you have all of the answers? Please take this as it is meant. The biggest barrier for anyone in learning anything new is unlearning what they think they know. Particularly when they do have a partial picture that is somewhat accurate in so far as it goes. That is a tendency that I have had to fight, and one that I strongly see you as having. Your comment about not being able to restructure on a dime is accurate. Your two CORRECTLYs are accurately judged nearly impossible, and attested to by a trail of corpses. (The one success he identified resulted in the burnout of the CEO who succeeded, and a large fraction of the company along with him. The company did, however, survive a transition that killecd.) Therefore it sucks to be the established company, no hope. Right? However despite the impossibility of getting your CORRECTLY right, there is a strategy which has worked for several companies and seems likely to be able to continue to work. And it isn't even hard advice to give. Proof: after analysis of what various CEOs have tried, what hasn't worked, and what has, he gives the necessary advice and spends a sample chapter on how automobile companies should address the challenge of electric cars. (At current rates of technological progress they will become an issue around 2030, give or take a decade.) Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman Edited by ben_tilly July 30, 2002, 06:34:59 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #47,428 by CRConrad 7/29/02 11:46:48 PM Reply	Uh... Do you?!? 'Coz, really, Ben... If there's anyone[] here who can challenge Brandi in the "thinking you have all the answers" department, I'd have thought it was you. Allow me to quote you, "Please take this as it is meant"... Just drop the 'had' from your "tendancy[sic] that I have had to fight", and you'll be absolutely right, AFAICS[]. Christian R. Conrad* Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus] []: Besides me, of course! :-) [*]: If you come up with any good methods to do that, mail 'em to me!
Post #47,444 by ben_tilly 7/30/02 7:25:53 AM Reply	Yes I may know a bit about a lot of things, but I have also learned to be very fast about saying up front when I don't know about something. Ironically people seem to forget when I say that. But they don't forget if they later see me mention something that I learned from the exchange. And they misinterpret the many times that I say that to myself, respond with a Google search, and then suggest a few relevant links that I found. So..even the technique that I have found best for handling a "know it all" tendancy (which, as I said to Brandi, is one that I have to fight) doesn't do very well at fighting the appearance of being a know-it-all! Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #47,481 by CRConrad 7/30/02 1:35:19 PM Reply	Hmmyeah... Could be I forgot; sorry.
Post #47,495 by Ashton 7/30/02 2:23:56 PM Reply	There's a Somerset Maugham story.. First - yes I recall your prefacing certain comments as above; perhaps we each should boilerplate that before Any political, religious ... er Any? comment about other than ~ "F=MA is both accurate and adequate, sub-relativistic." Mr. Knowall, the story - was rendered also in a film ('40s? '50s) called Quartet IIRC. (There was a Trio too) Scenario: a luxury liner, usual assortment of toffs engaged at dinner in witty upperclass Brit-speak - amusing and one-upping each other (though hardly at an Oscar W level). Title character happens to be a ..not so much 'jeweler' as gem expert. A rather brash one. When his specialty is mentioned, he's asked some questions and then someone looks for examples - it's been questioned whether he's Really that good at ferreting out 'fakes'. Attention turns to a Lady at the table, wearing a necklace. Mr. K. turns his gaze to her. At a distance of a few people, he pronounces them 'genuine'.. but as he approaches she demurs about the inspection with some weak reason. Yet all & sundry press for the 'example'. As Mr. Knowall approaches ['we' see..] a flash of stark [horror?] cross her face. Mr. K examines carefully the necklace ... [We see both their faces but we can not be sure what each is seeing of the other.] Mr. Knowall then admits, "no I was mistaken - it's a very good imitation, indeed!" In fact.. it was a present from the Lady's lover; naturally she dare not reveal its considerable value - as a quite genuine set of diamonds - to her husband. (Unclear how 'previous' was this lover, in the story IIRC, nor does that matter) Ergo.. for all his vanity and brashness - Mr. K. proved both observant and kind. No one would have suspected this quality from his previous behaviour BTW. Maugham was a Genius about homo-saps IMhO. I've always remembered this story as a polished jewel about precisely when: one must 'lose' an argument or forget one's expertise - where humans are involved. (Not that I always remember to Remember it, of course; being at least partially homo-sap also ;) Ashton
Post #47,420 by Another Scott 7/29/02 10:42:23 PM Reply	A better example might be Polaroid. They had unique technology. They were the world leaders in their field (instant photography). They were able to protect their lead in the face of competition from a larger rival (Kodak). But technology changed around them. They certainly could see it coming, and they knew their traditional rival and many big semiconductor electronics companies were investing in it. But they failed to change in the face of the steady development of large, inexpensive, CCD imagers. They also had quality control problems that annoyed the customers of their oscilloscope and microscope cameras (e.g. it was rare to get a box of Type 53 B&W film that had 10 good exposures). And at $1+ an exposure, their customers were pushed to investigate other options. MS is able to change on a dime compared to companies that sell real things with an established technology base. MS's monopoly tax allows them to invest in dozens of alternative futures, something that most companies can't. I wouldn't count on MS failing. And even if they do in their software stuff, they'll be around in some form or other, taxing the industry as much as they possibly can. E.g. they're doing their best to gain complete control over the hardware specifications. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #47,422 by ben_tilly 7/29/02 10:57:46 PM Reply	The chapter was written in the late 90's Therefore the subject of electric cars was on a lot of people's minds because of California. It just happened to work for him because electric cars show the basic ingredients of a disruptive technology. There is no way in hell that they meet the minimum needs for a car today. Yet projected rates of technological development make it clear that they will do so, and not that far from now. GM wiped out by someone currently manufacturing electric golf carts or dune buggies? Don't laugh. It could happen. Hell, Honda did it to the traditional motorcycle makers after establishing themselves with dirt bikes (though Harley did manage to survive in a high-end niche). Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #47,652 by deSitter 7/31/02 4:49:46 PM Reply	Re: Of course we have real-world examples Strange, the same scenario often precedes wars, which never simply "happen", but occur after a long buildup of destructive pressure. The bright people see them coming yet are somehow powerless to stop them. -drl
Post #47,305 by boxley 7/29/02 8:44:18 AM Reply	Siemens HiPath does what you need, does voip,did,ivr, all of the above and more, but it is pricy. With decent handesets for the office at $400 per handset your bosses 10k isnt going to be met by buying new. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #47,071 by Arkadiy 7/26/02 3:04:55 PM Reply	Re: Why Telcos Can't Make a Profit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. It costs more than $19-29 a month to provide reliable high-speed Internet service. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< No it does not. If you hire the right people, develop the right procedures, have the right software, the ongoing cost of a DSL connection is the cost of electricity a RedBack takes. If your people screw up provisioning database while adding new customers ... See the beginning of the pragraph. In short, you are saying that it's impossible to run a company as badly as telecoms are ran now and make a profit. Agreed. But it does not mean that it's impossible to make a profit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem was Long Distance competition. Good for consumers, bad for profits (and telcos). The money that was supposed to fund the build-out was those fat 20 cent a minute long distance plans, then 15, then 10. Now, at 5 cents, Long Distance can't even make a profit. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Two things: if I get it right, 5 cents is not about profit, it's about less loss. We have so much capacity that it stands unused, or, to lessen the bleeding, is sold at a loss. Another aspect: see above. With the right software, web-based billing, automated payment systems - why, there is no reason why 5 cents can't be profitable. Add golden parchutes and dumb decisions into the mix - and 20c will not help.
Post #47,142 by gdaustin 7/27/02 12:24:17 AM Reply	Costs... You're right. With the right people, right equipment, right procedures, and everything right, you CAN sell DSL at $19 a month and make a profit and you can sell long distance at 5 cents and make a profit. But, sadly, we live in the "real" world. AT&T Broadband is a prime example. When @home ran my network, I was able to flawlessly connect 3 computers on 3 different subnets to my cable modem and be able to use all 3 simultaneously. My Linux box could serve web pages, my work computer could VPN, and my home computer could surf the net. I was happy to pay the $29 a month initially, and even accepted the $65 a month when the rates went up. Then AT&T took over. They promised my service would "be the same, no change". First they sent me a notice advising me that I could not VPN, unless I paid for a "premium" account ( $99 a month ). They continued to bill me for 3 additional IP addresses for 2 more months, while I went through hell with their tech support (multiple hour waits, taking off from work to wait for a service person, etc.), only to finally tell me that the only way I was going to be able to set up my 3 computers was to buy their "networking solution". All they had to do was allocate me 3 DHCP addresses on the same subnet, and my router would have been fine. But, they're stupid, I guess. The networking solution was a router with NAT, to multiplex 3 computers over my single "new" IP address for $400-500. Finally, I capitulated and bought a 2nd network card for my Linux box. I set up NAT and routing for $19, but my VPN still doesn't work through Linux (because it's friggin' MICROSOFT VPN!). So, I disconnect my Linux box when I need to VPN and plug in the laptop from work. I then called AT&T and asked them to disconnect my 2 additional IP addresses ( to save $10 a month). They wanted to know why I was wanting LESS service, and I was too frustrated at that point to explain it to them. Then I get a flyer in the mail for $29 DSL service from SBC, free installation. I call them and ask. Service is available in my area. I'm excited. Then we get to the fine print. First of all, the free installation is only for a "minimum" service option where you install it yourself. You must have only a single DHCP allocated connection to the Internet, no HTTP server allowed, no VPN. I asked about additional IP addresses, and they advised me that I would then move to the "premium" service package, $400 installation, 2 year contract, $65 a month. But, serving web pages is still prohibited, (but I'm allowed to use my VPN to work). Small business package is $200 a month, plus I have to convert my home phone account to a business account. Installation charges still apply. Then I serve web pages. All I can figure is that noone can figure this out and they're all going to get rich getting it COMPLETELY WRONG! These huge companies have decided to hire morons for $9 an hour (or less), and then basically run off any customers who want anything more than a "standard/minimum" configuration. What a way to run a business! I work in a town that has their own cable modem service separate from AT&T called Greenville Electic Utility Service or GEUS ( we call it "goose" ). Since the owner of our company is on the Board of Directors of GEUS, employees who live in town have had no problem getting cable modem, additional IP addresses, etc. at a very reasonable price. The GEUS employees get to go to class on the technology and everyone is happy with the service. They guy down the block installs your cable modem. You see him in church. Maybe we need to run the "big shots" like AT&T and SBC out of our communities and set up truly "local" phone, cable, and electic utilities like Greenville, TX has. GEUS has a T3 to the Internet backbone that everyone in town shares. Big companies simply cannot understand the local customer service issues that a small company can, so they need to stay in the backbone business and leave customer service to companies like GEUS. A friend of mine consulted at MCI on some software that, if implemented, would have created an awesome high speed network of content delivery ( commercials, TV shows, movies ) over their backbone. Sadly, the management he worked with was completely entrenched in telco (must sell bandwidth), and didn't care at all about the software development effort. The project was finally delivered for a single customer, then cancelled. But, during my friend's stay there, they had Disney, ad agencies, and lots more companies lining up to buy the software (and the service), if MCI would just do some more with the software to meet the customer's needs. No deal... So, I'm not really happy with anything telco right now, mainly because it is so terribly managed, with terrible customer service, and I get to watch LOTS of friends get laid off from Alcatel, Nortel, MCI, Ericsson, Seimens, etc. here in Frisco/Plano/Richardson Texas in the heart of the telecom corridor. I swear about 20% of my church friends are laid off. The unemployment rate is officially 7.5% in Dallas/Ft. Worth, but I swear the "local" rate is more like 15-20% and growing daily. Stop the madness! If you own a business needing good Unix/C/C++ people, NOW is the time to locate a development center to D/FW. Forget Bangladore, you can do just as well in D/FW. Senior people are taking $20,000 - $30,000 pay cuts. Kids right out of college will work for $30 or 35K. And the impact isn't completely felt yet, because most of my laid off friends have severence packages which will keep them afloat until September or so. Home bankruptcies are already soaring, and I fear this is just the beginning. Glen Austin
Post #47,155 by static 7/27/02 3:21:53 AM Reply	I see similarities here. ADSL and SDSL in Australia requires Telstra in the picture. This is because they own the copper. Unfortunately, they had to be forced just short of legislative gunpoint to open up the DSLAMs to competitors because they want the cookie jar all for themselves. My ADSL is with [link\|http://www.pacific.net.au/\|Pacific Internet]. I'm paying AU$120 a month to have a static IP address on a 256/64 link that I can do (almost) what I like with. They aren't the cheapest, and this isn't even the cheapest of their packages! But the company I work for signs up our clients to the exact same service because PI are a responsive company with very good service (reputedly the best in Australian ADSL). And they've told us that $120/mo is where they are making money. The DHCP no-you-probably-shouldn't-run-a-server-but-we-don't-check 256/64 "home" service at $65/mo - which is competitive here - is not making them money and they quietly suggest to people that if they can afford it, then go for the $120/mo one. I'd rather pay a bit more and keep my provider making money, thanks. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #47,408 by tonytib 7/29/02 8:13:48 PM Reply	That's why I'm paying $70/mo for DSL Local ISP (Berkeley) staffed with people who know their stuff, excellent tech support, higher upload speed (384K vs 128K for AT&T or SBC's cheaper service), and none of those stupid restrictions. For me, it's worth the extra money. I hope enough people agree with me so they can stay in business. Tony

Welcome to IWETHEY!