Bill, that's among the first reactions I had, too.
>> I'd like to see the quality of those calls when traffic flows to a different ISP. QoS issues with VoIP are tough enough within a single network environment, let alone the multiple networks proposed here.<<
I think it would depend on the level of integrity (of the design), which would be a function of the level of competence possessed by those behind the overall architecture of this thing. I did not infer, however, that this outfit has any of the background that is going to be necessary to achieve anything more than a mesh of tie lines in the near term. It'll be fertile ground, however, for developing something from scratch. But by the same token, I have to wonder if they know what they are getting into in the broader scope of telephony and the emerging protocols that will be used during the inevitable convergence processes of the next couple of years.
They're talking about 50 cities by November. [Whoa! I want them on my project management team!] Let's see, that's two and a half months, or approximately 10 weeks. That's five cities per week. Hmm. Where've we seen that before, as well...?
The concept isn't a bad one, and the "QoS" (we'll call it QoS, due to its familiarity by the masses at this point in time, but QoS is fast becoming a term that has lost its meaning, or gained perhaps too many meanings, I'm afraid) need not suffer significantly if they limit their resource sharing to backbone capacity and peering at the router and trunk levels, and avoid excessive (or any) unnecessary analog-to-digital and IP-to-analog conversions along the way. The best thing that could come out of this is if they pooled bandwidth into a shared private, or dedicated, IP network [as their release began to explain they would], and reduced hop counts in the process. That might actually improve QoS or the audio quality level, but again, that would "depend." But I don't know. I've seen some pretty pishy poor designs coming out of shops who you would think knew better.
But this ignores the more fundamental reality that different manufacturers' gateways still, at this time, do not speak to one another, with very few exceptions. Does this imply, then, that all the ISPs are required to use an ERICY provided gateway? Good Luck! But stranger things have happened, I suppose.
Ericsson is providing the gear, and who knows, they may even be providing the expertise and a portioin of the financing... but that is JUST speculation on my part. At the very least, I would have to think that this is a visible form of release for ERICY's equipment, and it wouldn't surprise me if they are providing the design, along with added consulting. But again, that is only speculation on my part.
Anyone know of anyone else using the Phone Doubler by ERICY?
Frank C. |
