Isn't it wonderful how a simple idea can become absurdly complicated as 
soon as more people become involved?

For example... We are currently forming a plan for how our company will 
move to the new building that's being constructed just round the corner. 
As part of the move, I thought it might be nice to buy some shiny new 
Gigabit Ethernet switches. (Our current ones are 10/100 only.)

OK, only a few nodes actually support gigabit speeds, but it would be 
nice to have it. Additionally, it would mean we can have a functioning 
network in the new place and the old place at the same time, which is 
useful. On top of that, we probably don't need as many seperate boxes as 
we have at present, since there will only be 1 building instead of 3.

Checking online, it seems I can get to 24 or 48 port switch with gigabit 

depending on which make and model you go for.

Then the guys in the USA got wind of this idea. "Oh, don't order 
anything until we check it out. We've been trying to standardise on this 
particular model from Cisco and it would help tremendously if we had the 
same product company-wide."

Erm... well OK.

Hmm, well if it's going to say Cisco on the box, it'll be at least 2x 
the price. (Performing an actual check shows me that what I want will 

with justification that Cisco actually make the best products on the 
market. And there's even some danger of actual product support. And it's 
only a one-time cost. So, OK.

So I ask what model they're going with. Eventually I get back a reply. 
They don't know what model, they haven't decided what purchase route 
yet, and it won't be gigabit because that's too expensive. But they'd 
like to get something with PoE on it so that "in the next year or two" 
we can implement a complete VoIP system and we'll already have PoE in 
place when that happens.

Erm... what the hell?

(0. So it won't be gigabit, which is virtually the entire point of 
buying new switches in the first place, so I should probably stop here.)

1. Since when does VoIP require PoE?

2. For that matter, since when does VoIP require any special hardware of 
any kind?

3. You want to use VoIP? Um, *why*?? Do you just enjoy extra complexity, 
or is this because VoIP sounds all shiny and new and sexy and we should 
get with it?

4. So, let me get this straight. We're currently arranging a contract to 
spend tens of thousands of pounds to have our existing ISDN digital 
phone system moved to the new building, but "in the next year or two" 
you want to throw all that in the bin and move to VoIP? Are you mental?? 
You're telling us all this *now*?!?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, VoIP is still 
an immature and very experimental research technology that isn't yet 
usable in the real world. (Unless you have absurd amounts of resources 
to throw at the problem, in which case almost anything can be made 
feasible.)

I can't *begin* to imagine what advantage VoIP would offer us as a 
company. (Apart from the obvious benefit that next time our Internet 
access fails, I won't be able to contact our ISP to notify them, and 
next time our VPN goes down, I won't be able to contact HQ to get it 
fixed...)

Well anyway, I'm moderately certain that our building intrusion alarm 
won't work without a real telephone line, so I guess we still need at 
least a few of those. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> 2. For that matter, since when does VoIP require any special hardware of 
> any kind?

I have a standard el-cheapo 8-port switch in our meeting room with our VoIP 
conference phone running through it...

> 3. You want to use VoIP? Um, *why*?? Do you just enjoy extra complexity, 
> or is this because VoIP sounds all shiny and new and sexy and we should 
> get with it?

It makes communication between sites much more efficient and cheaper.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> 2. For that matter, since when does VoIP require any special hardware 
>> of any kind?
> 
> I have a standard el-cheapo 8-port switch in our meeting room with our 
> VoIP conference phone running through it...

That's pretty much what I thought...

>> 3. You want to use VoIP? Um, *why*?? Do you just enjoy extra 
>> complexity, or is this because VoIP sounds all shiny and new and sexy 
>> and we should get with it?
> 
> It makes communication between sites much more efficient and cheaper.

As I understand it, with our current deal it costs peanuts to call the 
USA at the moment anyway.

Post a reply to this message

>>> 3. You want to use VoIP? Um, *why*?? Do you just enjoy extra complexity, 
>>> or is this because VoIP sounds all shiny and new and sexy and we should 
>>> get with it?
>>
>> It makes communication between sites much more efficient and cheaper.
>
> As I understand it, with our current deal it costs peanuts to call the USA 
> at the moment anyway.

Guess it depends how often and for how long you call different countries, 
and whether they have VoIP too or not.  For us we have lots of secondees who 
seem to spend all day on the phone to Japan...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Isn't it wonderful how a simple idea can become absurdly complicated as 
> soon as more people become involved?

I teach computer literacy to ninth grade students.  The phenomenon you 
cite is *not* wonderful.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 02:17:43 -0000, John VanSickle  

<evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Invisible wrote:
>> Isn't it wonderful how a simple idea can become absurdly complicated 
as  

>> soon as more people become involved?
>
> I teach computer literacy to ninth grade students.  The phenomenon you
  

> cite is *not* wonderful.

hmm C=n(h+s)/w where the Complexity of a project is equal to the numbe
r of  

people involved multiplied by the number of pieces of hardware and sofwa
re  

required, divided by the number of words used to describe it by a  

manager-level person.

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> hmm C=n(h+s)/w where the Complexity of a project is equal to the number 
> of people involved multiplied by the number of pieces of hardware and 
> sofware required, divided by the number of words used to describe it by 
> a manager-level person.

Wait - that would imply that the complexity of a project decreases with 
the wordiness of the description. That can't be right... :-P

(I prefer the "comprehension = 2 ^ -precision" that somebody here has as 
their sig...)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:38:30 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
  

spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> hmm C=n(h+s)/w where the Complexity of a project is equal to the nu
mber  

>> of people involved multiplied by the number of pieces of hardware and
  

>> sofware required, divided by the number of words used to describe it 
by  

>> a manager-level person.
>
> Wait - that would imply that the complexity of a project decreases wit
h  

> the wordiness of the description. That can't be right... :-P
>
> (I prefer the "comprehension = 2 ^ -precision" that somebody here ha
s as  

> their sig...)

You missed the qualifer - 'manager-level'. "I just need a database to  

store every transaction for the company", "Let's have all our phone call
s  

going over the network?", "We'll just have one piece of software that do
es  

everything?"

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> It makes communication between sites much more efficient and cheaper.

Unless the bandwidth between those sites is already overloaded?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> It makes communication between sites much more efficient and cheaper.
> 
> Unless the bandwidth between those sites is already overloaded?

Made me laugh the other day - our GM says to me "when we move, we can 

need more than 5 meg, can we?"

Er, actually 50 meg would be better...

Post a reply to this message