Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Whitley who wrote (19746)	8/14/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: Grand Poobah	Respond to of 25814

The main problem with using IP for voice is that there is no circuit set up--you depend on efficient and timely routing for good quality of service, and you have no guarantee of getting it. ATM solves this problem by setting up a virtual circuit, letting you know in advance what your quality of service will be. Therefore ATM is a superior network protocol for voice. And that's what I said to my friend's brother. He works for a voice-over-IP company, so maybe he's biased, but he said that quality of service for IP is improving rapidly as bandwidth grows and within a couple years ATM will have little advantage. I'm not sure I agree with "doing packetized voice was a lot more complicated (compared to data)" "even with cheap, plentiful bandwidth". (Correct me if I'm misusing the context of your remarks.) We already know tons of stuff about doing packetized voice from the telephone network. The main problem with voice-over-IP is the inherent unreliablility of the Internet. But plentiful bandwidth goes a long way toward fixing that problem, not 100%, but far enough that ATM will never be able to push the 100-ton elephant called "IP" out of the way, IMO. Regards, G.P.