""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yes, we'll need strong business skills and an understanding of the business > applications that ride on the networks and actually make some money. Or > maybe better muscles. I saw on the news that the Pacific Maritime > Association offered the longshoremen a raise for the highest paying job to > $137,000. The longshoremen turned it down. Unbelievable.
CL: yeah, but it's outdoor work, and involves heavy lifting. ;-> >Hey, I'm generally > a bleeding liberal, but this port closure thing p!sses me off. > > Priscilla > > nrf wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to be so pessimistic. NRF - got anything to add? > > > > Oh, I got lots to add. But let me try to keep it short by > > couching things > > in the following bullet points: > > > > *If you want money, somebody has to be ultimately paying. > > Money in, money > > out. > > > > Cisco is not a mint. No vendor is a mint. Cisco can only earn > > money > > sustainably if their customers are making money. And not just > > making money, > > but making money by using Cisco gear. You can only get money > > out if there > > is money coming in. Is that really happening? > > > > Let me explain. Let's look at the Internet. Many studies have > > shown a boom > > in Internet usage. A boom in traffic. A boom in users. A boom > > in time > > spent on the Internet. In all categories there is a boom, > > except for the > > one category that matters - a boom in profits. How many > > dotcoms actually > > make money? Few, very few. How many service-providers > > actually make profit > > from providing Internet access? Again, few, very few. If you > > tally the > > aggregate of all the profit and losses derived from Internet > > operations, you > > will see that the Internet has been nothing but a financial > > debacle of the > > first order. A business model where you, as a vendor, are > > making record > > profits while many of your customers are unprofitable is a > > business model > > that is unsustainable. > > > > True, Cisco is not just all about the Internet. So let's look > > at Cisco's > > bread-and-butter - the enterprise customer. Enterprises will > > continue to > > invest in their network only to the degree that it is > > profitable to do so. > > Has Cisco, or any other networking vendor, been able to > > demonstrate a solid > > ROI from upgrading the network? In many cases, no. > > Companies don't just > > build out networks 'for fun', they do so because there is a > > clear business > > reason to do so. What are these reasons? > > > > Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there are no good > > reasons to do > > a network buildout. Indeed there are often many good reasons. > > But my point > > is that we need engineers who are not only technically strong, > > but can also > > articulate a strong business case as to why money should be > > spent. In > > short, we engineers need to know more about the business and > > financial side > > of things. > > > > *How many people really care about the network? > > > > By that, I mean how many regular (non-technical) people really > > care about a > > network at all? Are they going to be dazzled with mentions of > > BGP and VoIP > > and all that crap? Hardly. Regular people care about the > > services that a > > network can provide. It is the services that people are > > willing to pay for, > > not the network itself. But that begs the question - are there > > really all > > these jazzy services out there that regular people are willing > > to pay for? > > Before you answer, you may wish to consider the following > > snippet from the > > Hart-Winston study: > > > > "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to > > subscribe to > > high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of > > appeal," > > said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no > > interest > > regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay > > at most $20 > > per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently > > using the > > Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow > > and > > limited...Findings about consumer interest in subscribing to > > high-speed > > service also apply to those who use it at work, the poll found, > > indicating > > that even those exposed to the service find little reason to > > subscribe at > > home" > > http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html > > > > Then of course there was that incident in Oregon where a whole > > town was > > offered free broadband for a year, and only half the households > > signed up > > (can't find the article unfortunately, but you may wish to talk > > to Steven > > Ridder if you want to see it). The point is, at this time, > > very few regular > > people actually care about the Internet because there are no > > truly > > compelling services out there, and especially not much that > > people are > > willing to pay serious money for. > > > > * Cisco isn't going anywhere. > > > > All the nasty invective aside, the fact is that Cisco holds > > more of a > > premier position in the industry than perhaps at any other > > time. They got > > billions of dollars in the bank, and very importantly, no > > debt. The > > disaster of the service-provider market was something of a > > godsend to Cisco > > in the sense that it has crushed its competitors like Nortel > > and Lucent. > > Just a few years ago there was talk of how Cisco was going to > > have its lunch > > eaten by those Nor/cent because of their long-standing close > > relationships > > with service-providers. You don't hear that kind of talk > > anymore. The fact > > is, Cisco has basically been handed another few years for which > > it can > > develop a strong service-provider initiative (no, Stratacom > > didn't really > > work out, and the GSR is a point product, it's not an > > initiative). > > > > *The best move may be not to play. > > > > Cisco and networking in general most likely has its glory days > > behind it. > > Things will probably never be as good as they were. Cisco will > > probably > > never reach a market cap of $550 billion for many years and > > will probably > > never see a growth rate of 60% ever again. This extends to us > > engineers. > > We will almost certainly never have it as good as 1999 ever > > again. Network > > engineers will most likely have to combine their networking > > skills with > > other talents if they want to remain employable. For example, > > they will > > probably need strong business skills. Or strong app skills (to > > understand > > the services that actually generate the revenue that is needed > > for increased > > network spending). Things like that. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55136&t=54957 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
