All,
Here's an interesting article I came across from Interactive Week (below) that covers some variations being introduced in VoIP functionality. We recently discussed some similar measures that would circumvent the traditional PSTN model, and therefore, obviate some forms of FCC Long Distance regulation. That was not the intent of the referenced article below; it's what my filters picked up on, however, by reading between the "lines."
There are ways to improve on the fundamental PC-to-PC telephony model, while preserving "user independence." But when black telephone sets are introduced into the picture, and we begin to talk about the phone on the kitchen wall, things get complicated. Even when we get around the end office switch, the fly in the ointment continues to be the almost absolute dependency on directory services which are owned by the incumbents who control the end points: the physical loops and their associated identities, i.e., subscriber telephone numbers. Of course, this does not apply to enterprise adaptations for the most part, rather, I am referring to the use of VoIP in a public networking sense.
IMO, the now-popular phone to phone offerings that depend entirely on the end-office Class 5 switches and their associated line information databases are going to be attached with access charges sooner or later, i.e, they will receive traditional interexchange (IXC) treatment in the main, where there are no mitigating circumstances. However, other architectural approaches which use structural alternatives to hop onto and off of the cloud may be immune to a high percentage of those charges.
I'm not suggesting that this come about merely through the implementation of loopholes, or that the law be modified through litigation, aided by changes in federal policies that come about through public sentiment and appeals, solely. Those measures will no doubt be influential, but over time, they will not, IMO, prove to be the last word in how and why the landscape will be reshaped.
[It may be useful to keep in mind that "access charges" are bundled call origination and termination charges. They comprise pricing elements for switching _and_ the use of the local loop, and other infrastructure elements, and subdivisions of each classification of these elements. It's a veritable 'tax'onomical (pun intended) nightmare, if you ever look at the derivations of these charges, but that's a whole different discussion. ]
Instead, through the use of alternate architectures there would be no logical or justifiable reason for access charges "to the extent" that they are today, for some newer ingress/egress methods used by emerging network designs.
[It would be more than mildly refreshing to me to see less moaning on the parts of the neophytes and a little more creativity and good old fashioned ingenuity. But that takes a good deal of vision and technological savvy "in addition to" hype-induced (inducing?)marketing/marketechturing, and more importantly, time. And time is one commodity that most marketers do not feel they have the luxury of, in order to meet positioning criteria, and to do this up right. The pains of Internet (r)evolution.]
While the cable industry representative cited below does not seem ready to accept the possibility that VoIP is ready for prime time, I hold out a great deal of hope for it there, as well as over DSL and the more commonly used ISP RACs.
The setting for these announcements is Jeff Pulver's recent Von event. Oddly, the author of the article does not touch on some important implications that these offerings portend vis a vis FCC matters. While some of the cited approaches are currently primitive and crude in their own right, IMO, I think that they portend some good things for the future.
As alternate schemes become available, it is conceivable to me that a new set of formulas using new metrics (accounting hooks) may emerge out of the FCC's actions that could relax some of the traditional "switching" component charges (for schemes that do not use the end-office switch), while assessing some form of reduced levy on the use of the loops (when they are used).
But that will take some doing to get off the ground. Tracking such usage and distinguishing between local and LD VoIP not using the switch would require 'smoke' detectors and a good deal of two-way 'mirror'ing under the current billing systems employed today, unless some form of message traffic reporting is imposed on the industry which heretofore has been non-existent. It could wind up employing packet counts and pointers that would take years to deploy universally.
Perhaps a settlement method similar to today's ISP peering arrangements might emerge that takes monthly 'averages' into account per call serving area, rather than per-call charges. As one considers the complexities of administering individual call tracking on an Internet platform, then it becomes more attractive to implement an "Order of magnitude" or "relative flow measurement" approach to billing. And there are always those flat rate approaches that we've discussed that could take shape, as well.
Whatever the outcome, it's going to be interesting watching the individual industry players exorcise themselves from their schizophrenia, as they take on increasing roles, with some ISPs merging with CLECs, and some Interexchanges doing likewise, while the latter are bolstering their ISP functions, and the ILECs become perched to do it all. And let's not forget the Cable Operators who, once again it appears, want to do it all, too.
On the matter of subscriber telephone numbers and the completion of calls through the use of their associated line information data bases, today it is a straightforward matter in the switched environment where the established carriers are concerned. There are "electronic bonding" capabilities and measures (EDI-like links between competing xLEC operations support systems, or OSSes) now in place that allow ILECs and CLECs to share such information, with certain limitations to protect subscriber privacy and each carrier's proprietary information. These are also potentially available to the ISPs/ITSPs.
Looking into the future, however, as ITSPs increase their market purview and begin to encompass segments that transcend the boundaries of the IXC and the LEC (and rest assured, these plans are already underway), they should beware of what they aspire to, in this context.
No doubt, the larger, well-financed operators with industry experienced-professionals in their ranks will find this a cake walk. Well, do-able, in any event. Other, less sophisticated players may not find the challenge so enticing. Once a VoIP provider (by any generic industry heading) puts its chips on the table to provide local as well as long distance services, they become a player in a game with unforgiving rules. There are an untold number of monsters in the closet that await them in telephony that are difficult to even imagine in the normal ISP context. Not the least of which are: directory listing responsibilities (in addition to DNS administration); the need to participate in Local Number Portability (LNP) operations activities to satisfy users who switch providers and want to retain their telephone numbers; E-911 operations; Cellular/PCS interfacing; customer care/back office operations; etc. And there is always the USF.
These are among the rites of passage a voice telephony carrier will have to endure as the industry matures, IMO, lest they be given special and preferential treatment.
Does anyone here think that it is premature to begin thinking of ITSPs in the context of local service providers as well as LD? Comments are welcome.
Enjoy,
Frank Coluccio
=============begin clip
IP Telephony Vendors Pitch New Functionality
April 17, 1998
Internet Protocol telephony's big selling point used to be cheap long-distance calls for everybody, but at the Voice on the Net conference in San Jose, vendors and service providers made it clear that simply peddling low prices is passe.
It's possible that Internet Protocol (IP) telephony vendors took this stance when they realized that engaging in price wars with long-distance providers would end up badly.
"We could all afford to lose money for a little while," says Joe Rinde, director of switched network architecture at MCI Communications Corp. (www.mci.com). "Unfortunately, our senior execs get tired of that after a few months. Something about stock prices going down."
Instead, IP telephony vendors are confident selling the technology itself, focusing on how IP telephony lets carriers augment revenue and makes end users more independent.
"What the ATM [automated teller machine] did for banking, IP telephony will do for communications," says Andrew Sears, chief technical officer at IP.Phusion Technologies Inc. (www.ipphusion.com), an IP systems integrator. "IP telephony will allow customers to do self-serve telecommunications, and it will let [service providers] reap new revenues through value-added services."
Service providers can use IP telephony networks to add video services and collaborative data applications to their product lines. And end users may be able to choose different levels of voice compression to use for each call and pay according to the quality level of each call.
Aplio Inc. agrees with this model. The California-based company sells an IP appliance called the Aplio/Phone that enables IP telephone calls by connecting regular phones to the Internet via an Internet service provider (ISP).
This Internet device connects to an end user's phone as if it were an answering machine. A user makes a long-distance call, then hangs up. The Aplio box then dials up a connection through the Internet via an ISP and rings back the end user. The method is not quite seamless, but the end result is a smart device at the edge of the network.
Smartening up the edge of the network saves carriers money because they don't need to install a gateway on their networks. It also leads to a rise in networked homes. "It hasn't happened yet, but it's easy to imagine your refrigerator on a local area network in the home telling you you were out of milk," Rinde says.
And furthering vendor and system independence is the rise in IP telephony products based on standards. Open systems such as Fusion from Natural Microsystems Inc. (www.naturalmicrosystems.com) include Applications Programming Interfaces that allow customized applications for specific customers.
The whole arena reeks of choice, and service providers will have to be more involved in their choosy customers' needs.
"Providers are going to be forced to know their customers," says Paul Shaneck, director of telecommunications and media industry solutions at IBM Corp. (www.ibm.com).
The show (www.pulver.com) also attracted some cable companies looking to differentiate themselves from the competition. Michael Pritz, vice president marketing and product management at Antec Inc. (www.antec.com), a cable equipment maker, was there to see if IP telephony over cable was a viable option for his company. "We still don't know if this is real yet," Pritz says.
But the pace of this industry is breakneck. And Nayel Shafei, executive vice president of product development at IP network provider Qwest Communications International Inc. (www.qwest.net) has advice for the stragglers: "Follow us, or you're in the dust." |
