Crash,
While I am in agreement with you on many points, allow me to offer some contrasting views, along with a few opinions.
>>There appears to be this "US vs. Them" mentality that is prevalent in these discussions and articles which are usually centered around Packet vs. Circuit, Regulated Vs. Non-Regulated, or Tariffed Vs. Non-Tariffed.<<
That's true, but it may have its roots in some explainable origins, not the least important of which are adversarial in nature, representing some familiar forms of international conflict. The regulatory environments differ around the globe, for starters. So do the infrastructures and their adoption and adaptation curves to the 'Net. These serve to cause differences in uptake rate and all that that implies.
Somewhere in between those factors lies the fact the 'Net has historically been largely US-centric, with an immensely disproportionate level (as a function of global populations) of traffic either originating, terminating or otherwise "transiting" North America in a seemingly illogical and circuitous manner. For example, flows which originate in Lima, Peru, say, destined for either London or Bombay, even Sydney, transit my front doorstep, literally, in Manhattan, or they could be going through San Jose, CA. first.
This has led to more than just minor levels of resentment among ISPs worldwide, who are motivated from a standpoint of pride and other nationalistic tendencies, to roll their own solutions in order to remove onerous surcharges and what they deem to be unfair amounts in line rentals and the overall settlement process. Naturally, from a normal traditionalist standpoint, they would be inclined to do it their own way, and catch up to, or surpass, American hegemony in this regard. And this spills over into VoIP and FOIP architectural and administrative constructs as well. Those who recognize the need for "cooperation," as distasteful as it might seem to most of them initially, however, will prosper early on, despite.
>>This issue of allowing multiple vendor IP Gateway systems to communicate with each other is merely one of the the first hurdles in the race. <<
My view is that by the time we have full interoperability between these relatively rudimentary and discrete devices (relative to where this industry will be in a couple of years), VoIP will have been infiltrated and engrained in a more pervasive manner into most other network elements as well. Routers, dialin ports in ISP POPs, DSL drivers and Cable Modems, cellular and PCS basestation gateways, etc.
In the shorter term, this is really a matter that the ITSP needs to decide on. That is, do they want to be a cost cutting tie line facilitator while there is still opportunity to support arbitrage, or a next gen telco in the more comprehensive, albeit evolving, context. Of course, definitions of these two general classes of VoIP providers will vary with the individual, and that is one of the topics that I would like to see more discussion on here.
>>I have to giggle when I read these articles that state the embedded circuit switched network is going to be replaced by the next generation IP Telephony system.<<
Giggling is usually the very first, almost without fail, reaction that even the most competent among enterprise and carrier networkers have, when first confronted with the topic of VoIP. Those who are truly conversant in technology soon come around to the concept, and there are those who will abstain from any brain work on the matter, they will stick ardently to the party line, in other words, until told to do otherwise. But even the latter are beginning to turn their heads, however, in massive numbers, due to fear (reverse-FUD, so to speak) that they will be buried with the dinosaurs. It is at least something that plays on their collective minds, where career paths are concerned.
Your observation about the replacement aspect is well taken, and I agree. Again, however, tie line services are not to be confused with next gen telcos, however, they may be viewed as the first step in that direction a la the MCI, SPCC (Sprint), USTS, NTN, Datran, SBS, (may the last two rest in peace) bypass services of the Seventies. "Bypass" is a good word in this regard for most of what the ITSPs are currently doing, and it is a word that is seldom used today, but that's similar to what they are actually doing, with a new twist, using TCP/IP instead of nailed up microwave or coaxial FDM resale facilities.
Once coalescence of standards and the approaches taken by the majority of ITSPs reaches critical mass, and again, I am not sure how this will happen but I have some ideas, the creation of a new model will reach some level of maturity, and become assimilated into everyday life without much notice.
>>...but to assume this replacement is going to take place on a grand scale within the foreseeable future does not appear to be financially sound.<<
One thing that may play against your theory may be the issue of "power in numbers." It is not as though a single entity is attempting this, rather it is a movement among many global players with common interests and goals. From the outset of many (most?) of these ventures there is positioning taking place and takeout plans in the works, and in order to achieve these moves from either perspective, startups need to consider the compatibility of their infrastructures with those of others. And frequently, those "others" are the largest and best-positioned players with the greatest market share. That's how the food chain works. Consequently, architectural decisions are not often based solely (or even) on the best technology, per se, rather, what will sell best to suitors in the future. What else is new?
>>In my humble opinion, the ability for these networks to interoperate between each other will greatly accelerate the growth of IP applications such as VoIP, FoIP, and others. Solving this issue permits the applications to become truly ubiquitous and rise above the niche applications they are today.<<
In large part I agree. What is it that you see as the point(s) of contention among the would-be pace-setters?
>>It would certainly be refreshing to hear some discussion on the issues, obstacles, and proposed methods of companies or individuals who are attempting to solve these issues.<<
The organizations attempting to solve these issues are diverse, but I suspect that the international fora in the way of the IETF and the ITU/IMTC would be paramount, spurred on by VON initiatives such as Jeff Pulver's and others. As to what those issues are in telephony, there are too many to list here. Which highlights, IMO, one of the falsehoods that exists in the arena of global telephony administration. It is extremely complex, even at the local end-office-replacement or POP level, and it is not something that could easily be replaced or even converged in a couple of years. It's going to take on the order of a decade, and in the end, it will be viewed as another normal cycle of evolution, because by that time, the storm will have taken on a much greater level of force. The smoke being generated by these issues will be viewed as trivial and will have cleared already.
Just my opinions, as well.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
