Mindmeld, good questions.
"You keep calling it the voice network. But actually it is simply the backbone and extended network that will be used to carry ALL traffic, be it voice, data, or what have you."
This is actually correct! What most people who are not in Telecom business do not understand is that most of the Carrier networks are not analog -- they are already fully digital (only the edges are partially analog). "Circuit-Switched" sounds so obsolete and inefficient but the fact is circuit switched calls are voice that has been packetized which is then routed via various different transmission network technology (ATM, SONET, IP dare I say?) in the Carrier backbone. The only issue is how the bandwidth is managed --- i.e. in Circuit-Switched method, there is actually a guaranteed voice path and capacity established from end-to-end to ensure certain level of quality but because that bandwidth is guaranteed and reserved, if two people are not talking - like pauses -- that bandwidth is wasted so the Virtual Packet network approach which IP uses is more efficient in that sense that if there is silence, no bandwidth is wasted since voice packets are sliced and sent via WHATEVER routing is available -- BUT herein lies the problem -- because packets are routed wherever there is capacity all kinds of problems occur (latency, packet loss, etc.) resulting in dropped calls, echoe, garbled metallic sound, etc.etc.
In voice application (unlike fax or computer communication -- essentially data), the quality is simply not acceptable especially when the toll charges are dropping like rocks as the telecom markets deregulate around the world.
So yes there are some inefficiencies but these inefficiencies are not really necessarily inefficiencies but trade-off to get more reliability and better quality. Once the Internet players ever figure out how to introduce QoS (Quality of Service) which will be very difficult due to competing interest and the requirement to completely OVERHAUL a network which is essentially a network of networks (actually I can't even see this happening but let's say somehow this happens), Internet Telephony will improve their sound quality BUT then this will inevitably chew up more bandwidth. So as usual in life, you don't get something for nothing .............. at least in the backbone side of the issue.
This is why introducing IP into Carrier networks is not the panacea that some IP hypesters would have you believe.......the fact of the matter is that the backbone network is already pretty efficient in terms of how the packets are managed. The reason why some Carriers are moving towards IP versus ATM is that there are certain application and deployment advantages in building IP transmission based backbone network which I won't get into here.
Now, let's talk about the Toll charges (Settlement charges) that bloat the price of international calls.
Yes, it's true that one of the earlier so-called advantage of Internet Telephony was that it would allow service providers to by-pass the local PTT's for delivering the call. But there are couple of HUGE problems before Internet Telephony is 'allowed' to happen at the phone-to-phone level. (PC to PC voice conversation through Internet is do-able because no foreign authority -- i.e. PTT can control what goes through the Internet --- of course the problem is that if you are ONLY talking about PC-TO-PC market, you are only talking about VERY small % of the total market -- who the hell wants to fire up their pc, load the Vocaltec software, buy hardware, integrate it into their PC, and then make sure the person they are calling is ALSO available to take the call with all the proper hardware/software, full duplexed sound card integrated into their PC!!?? --- only hackers and some very limited niche players perhaps).
Problem No. 1...........to by-pass the PTT, the Internet Telephony players would have to install and maintain gateway quality switches in ALL major towns, cities and villages around the world. Huge COST, HUGE engineering challenge AND IT'S ILLEGAL IN MOST COUNTRIES. You can't simply start dropping PC servers in 100,000 local POP's --- this will take a long time and trillions of dollars of capital. And you can bet that the local authorities who typically own the PTT are not going to allow some american entrepreneurs to start siphoning off their lucrative long distance traffic without licensing them to death and making sure they pay Equal Access and Subsidization fees.
Second Problem: Even if these start-up IP players somehow build and install thousands of gateway switches all around the world to bypass the local PTT's, guess what -- in order to connect the callers, they still need to access that proverbial "last mile" and guess who owns the last mile? The local PTT. If you think RBOC has been pretty succesful in shutting out the LD players in US, wait till you go to India or China. in 99% of countries around the world, the local call is metered by the minute and is prohibitively expensive and the local PTT will FORCE the IP telephony to pay hefty access charge into their network to deliver the call.
So let's recap; The IP players have to basically BUILD their own end-to-end all-IP network all around the world and meanwhile, they have to get the blessing and regulatory approval for this to happen ............. and meanwhile, the traditional voice price at the wholesale are plumetting anyway due to de-regulation and leaky PBX's.
Good Luck IP Telephony and good-luck to all vendors whose share prices are BASED on IP Telephony replacing the EXISTING circuit-switched network.
This is why Roth said that the circuit-switched network isn't going away anywhere anytime soon! |
