Cisco Attacks Nortel’s Green Initiative

This green campaign proved successful for Nortel but it was grossly misleading to the contrary for the same amount of work done.

Cisco just proved what was exposed right here on All About Nortel in an earlier thread.

Nortel quoted the planet's entire industrial energy consumption not just telecom and in the billions pf dollars, A fear campaign where they then went on to offer first year energy savings as a rebate to buy Nortel product instead.

heh, ironiic Nortel tries to manage others costs when they can't manage their own

Only way Nortel is greener than Cisco is with envy or management's inexperience it seems.

Is it rude to ask if Nortel is a chronic liar? Seems that not only is Nortel's accounting and forecasts lacking credibility but their very campaigns! I would go so far as to say this was a desperate and unethical slander with intent post one of the largest frauds while headed to insolvency and so many still there. I just shake my head wondering what's next in this hysterical saga.

How could Cisco sit back and disregard the fabrications than dismiss them, just as it as Gary had done. Seems they have more lies than truths transpire, …wait, come to think of it, what truths?

“Don’t start a fight unless you know you can win” — Sun Tzu.

Nortel’s ‘green’ campaign was a good idea and could have worked if they took the high road. Unfortunately, they picked on the school bully and now they will be paying for it…–bb

bb,

that depends on how cheap in turn Cisco reacts to the Nortel campaign,the one thing that can not be taken away from Nortel is the fact that they beat out Cisco on being first to market with promoting the awareness of the ever increasing energy costs that companies are faced with in running their IT networks and with all the hype about going green,this is more likely to leave a positive impression when customers think of Nortel's ad campaign.

Cisco can counter Nortel's claims about their switches using less energy than their own,but there's a fine line that Cisco should be careful not to cross,otherwise customers may view Cisco's attack on Nortel's claims as an admission of guilt and further award merit to Nortel's claims.

That's the beauty of being first to market with an idea or concept,where challengers may be seen as trying to attack the advantage that a” first to market” has,or if another company tries a similar approach with their own campaign this can also be seen as an endorsement to the fact that the first to market has an idea that is favourably acknowledged by their competitors.

it happens all the time!

To claim the “numbers quickly add up” in a “mid-sized enterprise” does not strike me as significant, if what you even claim is true of course. Especially if quality or features favor another let alone most importantly confidence in support, like they will even be around next year.

For example, for every 240 IP phones, this would consume 120W more power? Right? As much as a light bulb, where maybe Mike's experience with GE helped with this idea =)

This splitting hairs is hardly worth mentioning once then Nortel's PR traditionally announces anything it can so who knows why or how could they have missed more green IP phones, again, if this held any merit given their honesty or achievements.

The “marketing prank” as you call it is indeed a fitting term but for Nortel not Cisco. Nortel misled not comparing energy use for the same amount of work being done not Cisco. And like I said this was dismissed here early on. I wonder how customers will feel when this become public, maybe acquire that shareholder look about them.

Nortel took on the offensive on a desperate move that worked. However, Cisco has bigger bucks to advertise its counter claims with in audio visual proof.

Another Nortanic foolish move in face of what they claimed as untrue with their struggle to regain credibility long lost. Misleading with intent that makes it fraudulently unethical, without intent, incompetent or stupid, either way Nortel loses …yet again.

And who's cheesy production, outsourced Nortel's or Cisco's products? wake up, why you yawn?

Nortel and Cisco use to spit at each other behind closed doors and Nortel could not have picked a worse sleeping giant in the boat they are in.

This is all just more bad news for Nortel. They should have thought about this earlier but since when have they ever done anything right,

…and she looks and acts a tiny bit like Jennifer Aniston, who is high maintenance, according to Brad Pitt. Who is sooo hot. And a global villager.

That does it, I'm buying Nortel and Apple exclusively from here on in.

Um, the energy that chainsaw just wasted could've fed a Nigerian family for a week.

bb,

If you're going to quote people, the least you can do is quote them properly on not just quote what you think was said. The proper quote from Sun Tzu I believe you are referring to is:

“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”

Otherwise how can we trust that everything else you say isn't distorted as well. Like the time you said you wouldn't post here anymore.

You must be a Cisco mole!!! NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU!!!

You mean:

“Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.” – Sun Tzu

MAKE THAT YOU'RE A CISCO MOLE!

If anything truly bad can be said about them damn Yankees its that with gas falling back under $2, they're gonna stop giving much of a crap about their electric bills.

notsure,

Indeed, I was only paraphrasing because the original quote sounds like bad English and there is enough of that on this blog. Also, that Betty Ford thing did not work out so well, as you may have noticed I had a major relapse over the weekend; back to Step 1.

However, regarding the validity as well as the accuracy of my comments, you can take that to the bank, which will not require a government bailout; I assure you. What bb knows is based on hard-core, street-level, battle-tested telecom experience spanning over a decade against competitors large and small, including Cisco. The end results are insights into what to do and, equally important, the wisdom of what NOT to do! In fact, I would argue the latter is even more important than the former. Just take note of what Gary (aka ‘Happily Retired Cisco Exec’) says about my comments.

Collectively, Nortel’s management has experience but lacks both insights and wisdom because they never really fought at the street-level; historically, their experience is limited to only supporting the ‘street fighters’ (read: flow processes).

The trenches are a whole new and a very different ball game for which they are not even remotely equipped to engage…–bb

If Faygo had a better product that would pass a blind taste test…. I bet we would see the Pepsi add compaign the following day.

Wise Business Words….

“It's not that the fast eat the slow, or even the big that eat the small, it's the smart that eat the stupid.”

– Steve Smith

This is all much ado about nothing. The reason that Cisco has responded so tongue-in-cheek is that Nortel's “Green' campaign has been a business failure. Nortel can not afford to fund the inventories of stocking distributors. It can not afford to fund any distributor / reseller programs – like extending payment terms.
Nortel's credit rating prevents any bank from extending short term loans to fund 60 or 90 day receivables from Nortel's distributors and resellers. In this credit environment, no bank is going to fund receivables from resellers in Mexico or Belgium or Turkey or India (especially India) for Nortel. Cisco has a self-funding program. They don't need the banks to fund programs for the distributors or resellers. That is why over the next 3 quarters, you will see a steady decline in the sales and gross margins of Nortel Ethernet Switches and Routers. And of course, no one in Nortel's executive management team understands anything about creating and driving indirect distribution – an expertise that Gary Daichendt demonstrated in Cisco' s hey day.

The people at Cisco know the Tolly Group very well. Cisco 'created' Kevin Tolly in the early 90s. Tolly was to provide 'independent' testing of performance. At the time, Tolly was literally working out of his garage. Tolly plays for pay and they understand what takes to configure tests. Cisco knew the results could be easily disapproved – and in a way that would make Nortel ridiculous.

Cisco has always stated that the reason that their products cost more is that they have better functionality, performance, and density. Now Nortel proves that claim – and shoots itself in the foot – by testing a product that claims to have 48 PoE, but can only power up 24 of them without costs. When a company buys a Switch with 48 PoE ports, they expect all of them to function at the same time.

Light-hearted ridicule is the best response to Nortel's campaign. The reality is that resellers and distributors are not buying Nortel's products so there is no need to respond to Nortel's claims in a manner that might make them look semi-serious. And of course, no one wants to be seen publicly kicking a vomiting puppy when they can simply destroy their resale channel distribution capability.

The problem with most Nortel business types and followers is that they still understand the reality of distributing and servicing products on a global basis. They still have that old Nortern Telecom DNA. Nortel's BOD had a chance to add Cisco DNA but decided that they wanted to stay with the steady hand of Admiral 'Gilligan' Owens. And the shareholders and employees are paying the price.

When Cisco was pushing Green more than a year ago I had asked Nortel executives about marketing energy savings. Most said they did not want to go down that road as power consumption was way higher. Thats why the energy calculator is only on some enterprise boxes. Maybe they do better or not who knows. Cisco marketing is well known for pushing things that do not work so I do not trust Cisco either.

With sub $50 gas prices, who cares. Americans will go back to their spending ways.

Americans are indirectly responsible. What about the tonnes of plastic junk toys that end up in dollar stores.

Where are these made – China? Where are the factories – China? Where are the chemicals spewed into the environment – China?

Now Who gets them made? Western corporations. Who buys them? Western consumers.

Take responsibility. Just shipping off the manufacturing does not make the West any greener. Bunch of hypocrites.

I'd except one only if Oscar were made from recycled Indian jute, Chinese rice boxes, and shredded Nortel memos printed on recycled stock.

Cisco's doesn't pump Koolaid, they are honest and have done well.

Nortel lies and has proven to feed us even more kool aid with this Cisco Energy Tax campaign's nonsense. … false and misleading advertising, and Cisco just proved it here

Nortel's draws more power than Cisco's when all 48 are enabled in standby or under load period.

Nortel's extra power supply is required is the point when comparing apples to apples. Nortel lies with zero credibility and I can cite endless more examples beyond this if you like to talk koolaid that kills.

Cisco does not need an extra power consuming supply to power their 48 ports to save up yo 40% more energy, That's horsefeathers – AKA lies.

Also, how in the world would the Cisco switch require even more power than it was designed for as you claim? The most obvious is usually the most truthful here.

Just compare where younger Cisco to older Nortel is headed for more proof. Nortel is toast. Cisco makes billions/Nortel loses. Its a poor sport ploy while going down for the count by these frauds.

Exposing the truth burst bubbles in Cisco's energy tax that is no government instituted tax at all to boot… what terms and what misleading lies from inception, from the intrisic core exposed by extrinsic examples by a successful and honesy company that will be around to service their product

Do you not understand that “energy tax” is a marketing line? It's not a real tax, and only an absolute fool would believe otherwise. Give it a rest.

Thanks DJ, but I can handle this one, easily …–bb

1. “The way Sun Tzu said it” is irrelevant because he never spoke English. Thus refer to my original reply.

2. The fact that you made no mention a specific product has no bearing on bb's argument. You made a blanket statement that being first to market offers a path to success. Broadbandbill offered a counter point, citing a specific example. Thus he proved your argument wrong with this counter example.

3. You have provided specific examples of companies that did succeed, though since counter examples exist it does not justify your original blanket statement.

“Just compare where younger Cisco to older Nortel is headed for more proof. Nortel is toast. Cisco makes billions/Nortel loses. Its a poor sport ploy while going down for the count by these frauds.”

Speak english much?

“Cisco Energy Tax campaign's nonsense” If you don't like a campaign go purchase an energy meter and compare draw from an idle 55xx or even more with a 45xx vs a 3750. It's a fact that the 3750 draws more. If were going to call someone misleading, why would we ignore the statement that 'Nortel will only power 24 of the 48 ports'. NO as has been corrected, Nortel does not support full 802.3af Class 3 power draw on all ports (but Nortel does power all ports), so if you are a business like I've never seen and are putting 48 devices on your switch that all draw 15.4W per, then yes you'll need an RPSU to do that. However we all know those are slim odds, a difference yes, but most customers would in fact save on their bill for electricity and heating by running the Nortel ERS, as outside that very specific scenario – The Nortel will come out ahead… Screw the calculator and put a watt meter on it, then argue your points. Good Luck with that.

Also while were pointing out differences, Nortel did a better job designing the Power utilization function of their switches. The Cisco puts out power based on a power classification and reserves that much power for that port, where the Nortel simply provides the amount of power required by the device (similar to a wall outlet in your house).

Made my points without a single personal attack on anyone, imagine that. I'd read the comments more often if this was the rule rather then the exception.

Actually assuming a 5 watt savings per phone, if you had 240 phones then you'd save 1200 watts, not 120, far from a mere light bulb. (But maybe several)