DenverTechie,
Great Post. It's good to see someone willing to take issue on this subject.
Please permit me to take the adversarial role here, if you will, as I think that your views and my contrasting opinions can be used to support some meaningful and instructive discussion here. Perhaps Mr. Pulver will join in later on, if he's so inclined.
While I may agree with some of your conclusions, I don't think I'm necessarily in tune with how you get there. But then, a devil never is. <smile>
First, you note that:
>> He's running a company committed to voice over the Internet. A fairly biased view point and definitely has vested interests in what he's describing.<<
In fairness, I'd have to say that Jeff Pulver does have a vested interest here, as we all do in one thing or another, and I'm sure he's got a lot riding on the things he's been prognosticating over for the past two or three years. But I've witnessed some of his admonitions concerning some of the hype in this sector, as well as his exuberance. As an example of the former, see his July 23 Pulver Report article on Mergers and Acquisitions in the VoIP sector. I think that it's quite balanced and sobering for those startups wanting to enter this field at this time.
Message 5298187
You go on to say,
>>...I don't agree that "It's a done deal" in his Point 2. No where is it carved in stone that future public networks will be IP based.<<
Perhaps. But I think that it's fairly safe to say that today's AIN/IN based PSTN/GSTN, in the form that it currently exists, is hardly the vehicle that will see us through to a multimedia (which includes voice) convergence. IP stands a much better chance of getting us there, either on its own, or in hybrid with one of the earlier Bellcore/ITU/ETSI-contrived plans that depends on MultiMedia over ATM in the last mile and atop B-ISDN. I cringe to think of the latter... it's just too unwieldy. I am increasingly of the opinion that it will get us there on its own, since many of the inter-protocol mapping strategies are not working out as hoped.
>>Yes, there will be IP based public networks, but they will NOT take the place of the existing circuit switched PSTN, merely augment them. Phone companies have literally billions of dollars of embedded investment that is nowhere near being completely depreciated.<
Many of those assets have already been obsolesced, not only by encroaching IP and ATM technologies, but by their own brew of late releases, as well. The ten-to-twenty year depreciation cycles of the past, that the Telcos clung on to for eons in their accounting schedules, are only now beginning to yield to the dynamics of 'internet time,' as the incumbents are now finding out. Here they will also begin to recognize the migration capabilities and the extensibilites of IP, as compared to the more restrictive attributes of earlier day switching technologies.
>>And as I have described before, the main line/life line service will not migrate to IP for many years, if ever. I've already given my reasons for thinking that.<<
With IP over DSL or Cable modem as another alternative, the cause of life line services may actually be enhanced two or three fold, by adding another option to the list of POTS, the increasing use of Cellular, etc. The life line argument in my opinion is getting very long in the tooth. Worst case, the incumbents will continue to make POTS available, at no detriment to IP voice. For, as long as there is Internet access, it becomes a non sequitur argument. People will migrate to VoIP anyway, based on its price attractiveness.
>>I don't believe that 1999 will be the year of Gateway Interoperability ... This problem will not be addressed and corrected by the industry in early 1999 or even late 1999. <<
To a degree I would agree with you if your argument is focused on the majority of smaller players whose interests reside in proprietary solutions. There will always be rooms for niche players whose products by definition do not need to communicate with others, by virtue of the applications they are filling. But the heavyweights in the sector, both broad-based and pure-plays, and the next tier down the ladder,possible, who cumulatively will account for more than 80% of VoIP traffic over time, will rally around the emerging standards, or de facto set of guidelines, for many reasons. Whether it takes place in 1999 or 2000 is really not the point. Rather, and more to the point, it will take place, IMO, for the larger and most influential list of players. The others will either be bought out; relegated to niche situations; or, perish.
>>These are competitors we're talking about with big money at stake.<<
Which ones are you referring to? The Nortels and LUs? Or the CSCOs and BAYs? Each of these is migrating to the other side, and each of these is increasing its stake in the IP camp, way disproportionately on the evolutionary time line, compared to standard switched services developments being pursued. Maybe this is what Jeff Pulver meant by "It's a done deal."
>> SONET interoperability was standardized many years ago and it still is a network dream. Still years away.<<
SONET will never reach universal interoperability, I'm afraid, for it is poised to be bypassed on the heaviest of fiber routes, such as those that are being emplaced right now by QWST, MFNX and LVLT, both as they are emerging now, and into the future, by Packet over Lambda technologies in those situations where it could have been used to do the most good. And to a large extent, this applies to ATM as well.
>> 3. If the education of nextgen telcos and PSTN/IP gateway vendors has begun as he states in Point 11, I haven't seen it. It is not self evident.<<
Not to be cute, but I haven't seen a good Jazz Concert lately, either. So? Does that mean there aren't any good Concerts playing at this time at Lincoln Center? Not hardly. It simply means that my focus has been elsewhere. Think I'll go out tonight and buy a couple of tickets to an Ellington revival.
Conversely, where you happen to agree with Jeff, I happen to disagree. The notion that the customer doesn't care is fast becoming an anachronism:
>>Customers couldn't care less about your technology and whether you are using Internet Telephony, they look for consistent, predictable quality between calls...<
I certainly would care. If I had to choose between a POTS line, an ISDN line, a Cable Modem Line, and ADSL line, or a WLL line, I would want to know what kinds of leverage each would avail itself to. If it was plain old analog POTS I would be stranded from most of the other applications (besides low speed data and of course, voice) that I might be interested in.
If I had DSL service, I would want to know how it terminates in the CO, what my upstream alternatives were to the WWW, etc. If I had cable modem, I'd want to be sure that I was getting a good shake, both ways, on the drop, and that my provider had ample provisions in place to accommodate me and the other tenants on my branch. Etc. I think that users in all walks of life are becoming more discerning, as evidenced by talks I have had with cab drivers, coworkers, security guards and relatives around the Sunday macaroni and meatballs table. If these folks care, then I think the providers should, as well.
On a recent trip home from JFK Airport, my dad and I were discussing his paltry throughput and the other limitations he's been experiencing on WebTV. The limo driver chimed in with his assessment of ISDN pricing structures (and the fact that WebTV didn't support it anyway) and emerging wireless services, but noted that the WebTV servers were not so equipped for these, and probably wouldn't be until version 7 of Real Audio was released. <<?!?>> And so it goes...
Comments are welcome.
Best Regards, Frank C. |
