[73542] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: time to bury nethead versus bellhead polemics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (scrawford@scrawford.net)
Fri Aug 27 23:55:37 2004
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:45:18 -0500
From: <scrawford@scrawford.net>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Reply-To: <scrawford@scrawford.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
seems like a moment to announce a conference dedicated to burying the
polemics:
Nethead/Bellhead: The FCC Takes On the Internet
www.cardozobellhead.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Gordon Cook
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 11:40 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: time to bury nethead versus bellhead polemics
Hope that more than a few here will be interested in some of my=20
recent conclusions - from the November issue that I just published.
Why a Layered Model is the Only Reasonable Way to Evaluate Telecom
Lines of Business Have Blurred - Making the Regulatory Concept of=20
Vertical Silos Archaic
Time Has Come to Bury All "Bellhead versus Nethead" Polemics
Introduction
Since the bubble burst in late 2000 sending the Internet and the rest=20
of telecom into a tailspin, it has been rather obvious that former=20
stability and predictability of the economics of telecommunications=20
has been shattered. The last several issues of The COOK Report have=20
explored the fallout of those shattered economics in great detail.
In this introduction The COOK Report notes that telecom economics is=20
likely to stay broken, first, due to oversupply, and second due to=20
lack of differentiation on anything other than price across too many=20
competitors in services and service providers. Third: because of very=20
loosely bonded brand loyalty. A final and very serious additional=20
problem is regulatory instability as the FCC struggles with=20
historical precedent in its interpretation of legislation. It finds=20
itself whip-sawed between its "vertical silo" model derived from the=20
technology it regulates, and the increasingly advocated "horizontal=20
network layer view" of the IP enabled services, including but not=20
limited to VoIP, Video over IP, and so on.
As long-term, and, perhaps, not so long term, readers of The COOK=20
Report are aware, this publication has not only long trumpeted the=20
"bellhead vs. nethead" divide, but taken a partisan position where=20
anything seen to be "bell-headed" was regarded as bad while=20
"netheaded" was seen as the 'nirvana' to which the Internet would=20
guide telecommunications.
=3D =3D =3D=3D
For the remainder of my Bury "Bellhead versus Nethead" Polemics=20
article please see
http://cookreport.com/13.08.shtml
--=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618
USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) Subscription info & prices=20
at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Why Bellhead vs Nethead=20
polemics don't
help at: http://cookreport.com/13.08.shtml E-mail cook@cookreport.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
