At Interop last week, Cisco CEO John Chambers spoke about how IT managers have to think three years ahead for planning their network infrastructure — “by the time it is obvious, it is too late” to plan for any changes to actually be implemented, he said during his keynote. He also mentioned the theme of “quad-play everywhere” meaning networks that support data, voice, video and mobility. (This is an upgrade from last year’s keynote, where mobility hadn’t yet made the cut and we were just dealing with the first three. Way to go on updating a tired metaphor, John.)

He spoke about these four-headed networks in your home, in Starbucks, and everywhere else, and how this will enable different business strategies and opportunities for networked IT. This is news? This is keynote-worthy?

This got me thinking. Before we can take that look ahead, it is instructive to take a look back three years and see where Cisco has come. It is a convenient time frame for me, because about three years ago I wrote a piece for VAR Business called “Is Cisco Vulnerable?”

My article opened with this thought:

The year 2003 may well be the beginning of the end of Cisco's world domination in the networking marketplace, according to VARBusiness reporting, industry analysts and Cisco competitors. The company has lost market share in the key service-provider sector to Juniper, and is lagging on key technology-innovation areas as well. It has demoted thousands of partners from Premier, Gold and Silver statuses -- partners who are finding out that there is life after Cisco and who are doing well selling products from competitors. And, to prop up its flagging stock price -- which hasn't been out of the teens for much of the past two years -- Cisco has had to cut margins and trim staff to keep costs in line.

Well, its stock price has climbed out of the teens and now is trading in the low 20s, so how about that? At this rate, they might pass Microsoft in about another ten years. But forget about all those disgruntled VARs from 2003, who are probably selling lots of non-Cisco stuff now and very happy. Forget about the layoffs and margin slicing too.

What Cisco has been doing the past three years is buying up lots of companies. Shortly after my article appeared in VAR, they did the deal acquiring consumer networking vendor Linksys.

So here is your assignment. Do you recognize any of these companies and can match up with the category of products (voice, video, security, wireless) that they develop? No cheating by checking online sources, this is a closed book test. Also, before any of you email me, I am sure that I am missing a few acquisitions here and there, so this isn’t a complete list.

In 2004: Riverhead Networks, Twingo Systems, Procket Networks, Actona Technologies, and Parc Technologies

In 2005: Airespace, BCN Systems, Jahi Networks, NetSolve, Perfigo, FineGround Networks, M.I. Secure Corporation, NetSift, Sipura Technology, Topspin Communications, and Vihana

And in 2006: KiSS Technology, Nemo Systems, Sheer Networks, Cybertrust’s Intellishield Alert Manager, Digital Fairway Corporation, Scientific-Atlanta, SyPixx Networks

Now, granted these aren’t exactly household names, with two possible exceptions: Scientific Atlanta, which makes set-top boxes; and Airespace, which makes managed wireless networks.

But what it is interesting about this list is the lack of the leading edge. Look at what Microsoft and Google were buying over the past three years. Is there a Ray Ozzie or Vint Cerf-equivalent that we can point to at Cisco?

So here are the questions I would have asked Chambers, had I had the opportunity:

1. While Cisco is still profitable and has the lion’s share of many markets, they continue to move away from being the technology innovator. So prove me wrong, John: let’s list products from each of these acquisitions above that are still sold by Cisco and can demonstrate that leadership.
2. Are the remaining Cisco Gold and Platinum VARs still as unhappy as they were three years ago? What have you done to turn the tide with your channel? And show me where having Linksys can complement this strategy, too.
3. Speaking of which, Linksys has largely been left alone as an independent business unit, which is probably for the best. I don’t see much evidence of any product synergy between them and the mother ship. Did I miss something?
4. The past three years haven’t seen much price erosion in core Cisco products: instead, we continue to see price increases to keep up with features and functionality found in less-costly competitors. And as the gap widens, there is more opportunity for the second tier to take market share away from Cisco.