Re: [EFM] Banana networks
- To: Geoff Thompson <gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [EFM] Banana networks
- From: Alan Levy <refconstandard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:48:26 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Geoff Thompson <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>, Hugh Barrass <hbarrass@cisco.com>, Sanjeev Mahalawat <sanjeev@cisco.com>, ariel.maislos@passave.com, "'Mccammon, Kent G.'" <kmccammon@tri.sbc.com>, Thomas.Murphy@infineon.com, stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org, Vipul_Bhatt@ieee.org, wdiab@cisco.com
- In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20021212115158.01db4ef0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
Thanks, Geoff. Quite correct... nature abhors a
vacuum. I wish someeone would explain the physics
part to the FCC. Back to lurker mode.
Best,
Alan Levy
--- Geoff Thompson <gthompso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Roy-
>
> At 08:54 PM 12/10/2002 -0600, Roy Bynum wrote:
> >Geoff,
> >
> >A service subscription network does not work like a
> >privately owned LAN facility.
>
> Currently true. Therein lies a great part of the
> problem that some of us are trying to solve.
> Carriers have formulated the tariff/revenue model
> forever and it is based on the "old" model that
> bandwidth is scarce and precious. Customers and us
> cranks from the LAN industry both want the WAN to
> look like a LAN
>
> >In a subscription network, there is no such thing
> >as "excess bandwidth". A copper facility will be
> >provisioned and operate at the maximum that the
> >distance attenuation will allow. Fiber facilities
> >will be provisioned to provide the maximum service
> >bandwidth that the customer is willing to pay for.
> >When more than one customer can be put on the
> >fiber facility, the service provider will provision
> >the maximum that the fiber will support, often for
> >packet/frame facilities, the bandwidth will
> >be over provisioned in the aggregate for all of the
> >customers. This will hold true for either P2P or
> >P2MP. This is one of the economic realities
> >of subscription networks. The limitation of how
> >much bandwidth and how many customers is put on
> >that bandwidth is strictly do to the physical
> >limitations of the facilities and the willingness
> >of the sales and marketing people to keep putting
> >people on the same facility.
>
> You are assuming that the revenue/tariff model will
> not change. I believe (1) that it will, if not in
> the US then elsewhere in the world in countries who
> are willing to bet that a new model will provide
> a "great lap forward" for them. and (2) if the
> revenue model does not change then EFM not be a
> success to any significant degree.
>
> >The use of "lettuce", "bananas", and "peanuts" was
> >an effort to be able to indirectly discuss issues
> >of service functionality requirements, which up
> >until now, have not been fully explored. Since
> >"services" delivery is the specific purpose of a
> >subscription network, without such a discussion,
> >how will the group know if they have achieved the
> >basic objective of "Support Subscriber Access
> >Network ..."
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Roy Bynum
>
> The world's WAN space is awash in lit and unlit
> excess bandwidth. (Transatlantic lit capacity is
> currently said to be 7X traffic) The telcom
> industry has no way to sell a significant portion of
> it in the current revenue model. Ultimately they (or
> their scrap dealers, who won't care about the
> current revenue. That's what makes scrap
> dealers/scavengers different) will have to make a
> decision about how to get some revenue out of it any
> way they can. High jitter, high bandwidth packet
> delivery systems that are terrible for real time
> voice and video provide the potential for this. If
> the scrap dealers can sell it this way in the
> regulated space I would expect them to do so. If the
> scrap dealers can sell in the unregulated space then
> they won't have to go to the trouble of making it
> jitter.
>
> This vast vacuum of available bandwidth in the core
> will suck players into the access space to provide
> paths to the core.. Nature abhors a vacuum. Physics
> always wins in the long haul (pun intended).
>
> Geoff