[70877] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: best effort has economic problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vicky Rode)
Sat May 29 22:23:20 2004
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 18:18:22 -0700
From: Vicky Rode <vickyr@socal.rr.com>
Reply-To: vickyr@socal.rr.com
To: "Edward B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>, nanog@merit.edu,
nsp-qos@puck.nether.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405292217270.3165-100000@a.mx.ict1.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
interesting reading....
http://mail.internet2.edu:8080/guest/archives/qbone-arch-dt/log200205/msg00000.html
regards,
/vicky
Edward B. Dreger wrote:
> GC> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 16:53:17 -0400
> GC> From: Gordon Cook
>
>
> GC> The point I am making in my report is NOT that the best
> GC> effort network has technology problems but rather that it has
> GC> ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. That it might support 2 or 3 players not
> GC> 2 or 3 HUNDRED.
>
> Best effort is cheaper to provide. Cheaper sells. Is there
> enough of a market to sustain premium services? IP-based VPNs
> haven't replaced FR and PtP WAN links, but FR and PtP haven't
> thwarted IP-based VPNs.
>
>
> GC> That until companies begin to go chapter seven and vanish,
> GC> the best effort net will be a black hole that burns up
> GC> capital because, for many players, the OPERATIONAL expense is
> GC> more than they get for bandwidth never mind cap-ex.
>
> Definitely true about opex and capex... but I'm not convinced
> that QoS is the magic bullet that will make the marketplace big
> enough and profitable enough. I don't see service offerings
> fixing the woes of screwball pricing.
>
>
> GC> best effort won't go away. many best effort players will.
>
> If all best effort players provided QoS/guaranteed services,
> would the survival rate be significantly higher as a result?
>
>
> GC> for the time being, best effort bandwidth prices as an
> GC> absolute commodity cannot sustain networks over the long
> GC> haul. A network that can deliver QoS the report hypothesizes
> GC> may be able to attract enough revenue to become profitable.
>
> That's where I'm not convinced. Current IP delineates the lower
> reliability boundary and a benchmark price point. Premium
> services won't have a lower cost than best-effort, so they must
> sell for more. Would the incremental service improvements be
> high enough to draw customers away from cheap BE _and_ support
> "sufficient" margins?
>
> First class hasn't stopped the cycle of airline bankruptcies and
> government bailouts. I don't see "first class data" as much
> different.
>
>
> GC> How to to this my group is still discussing. We don't
> GC> pretend that QoS is easy or any kind of mature collection of
> GC> technologies, but increasingly it looks as though the
> GC> industry, if it is ever going to be self sustaining, really
> GC> needs to look at QoS services and solutions.
>
> Perhaps, but only if the price is right. DSL sells better than
> Internet T1 lines, which sell better than end-to-end private
> lines and packet clouds. There's a reason for that.
>
>
> Eddy
> --
> EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
> A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
> Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
> Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
> Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
> _________________________________________________________________
> DO NOT send mail to the following addresses :
> blacklist@brics.com -or- alfra@intc.net -or- curbjmp@intc.net
> Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
>
>
