To: nicewatch who wrote (11629 ) 6/8/1998 6:46:00 AM From: Secret_Agent_Man Respond to of 50264
THE ARTICLE: which should be called the big myth/lie. see comments at end of article special to ABCNEWS.com AT&T currently is trying out a new long-distance service that connects people using standard voice telephones over the Internet, at a fraction of the cost of a conventional long-distance call. The idea, considered from a technological standpoint, is so loony that one can only conclude either that the company has lost its mind or that it is up to something devious. As ABCNEWS.com has previously reported, lesser companies without AT&T's existing long-distance franchise already are offering this service. From their standpoint, the initiative makes a certain amount of sense, as anyone can make a little money over the short haul by coming up with a new Internet fad. But for AT&T to market an Internet product it knows cannot work-one, moreover, that appears to threaten its own lucrative long-distance market-is doomed. It can only prompt the question, "Does AT&T really want this thing to succeed?" Sticking by the Telephone There is so much excitement about the Internet these days that no one remembers what it was originally designed for: to survive a nuclear war and allow government, the military, and scientists to communicate via a slow, reliable, digital-text delivery system. It was never intended to deliver sound and video the way television and telephone lines do; it was intended to allow someone to open a TelNet connection and keep it open for days at a time, communicating with others through a keyboard by sending little packets of bits out over a network that could route and reroute them around bomb-damaged stretches of wire. In order to deliver streaming audio or video over the Internet in ways that approximate the efficiency of telephone and television cable, then, media companies have to do a lot of extra work overcoming the design of the Internet. So any attempt to bring Net audio and video delivery up to the standards of conventional media systems is all but doomed. Anyone who has used nascent Internet telephony systems already knows that the quality is far below that of conventional telephone systems. (this is obviously an old article since there have been many advances in voice and compression/latency.) AT&T appears to be betting that people will put up with the poorer quality and greater inconvenience (the user will have to dial an Internet access number, then dial a PIN code and the number he or she is trying to call) ALSO WRONG LOOK AT THE DEFECTION OF INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS CHIEF IN EUROPE TO GLOBAL-LINK TO HEAD UP IP-TELEPHONY! because the cost of an Internet-delivered long distance call will be one-third or less the cost of a conventional long-distance call. There will be delays, glitches breakdowns and conversations interrupted by weird silent periods and dropped packets of sound, but the failings will be worth it for the money saved. Kill Demand With Poor Service That will only be true, however, as long as relatively few people use the service. Once AT&T's Internet telephony catches on, the glitches will make the service unusable. Long-time users of the Net already have noticed how much slower it is getting as more and more people go on-line. Throw in a bunch of telephone callers, and the latency and overload problems will only grow intolerably worse for everyone. It is the problem that has dogged the Internet from the day it first went commercial: the more successful it is, the worse it gets. Thus not only will Internet voice calls decline drastically in quality if the AT&T product catches on, but other users of the Net will notice their data traveling slower.and.slower. and.slower.Not only was the Net not designed to stream audio and video in real time, it wasn't designed to handle such traffic for millions of simultaneous users. So why is AT&T doing this? The bet in this corner is that the company wants to fend off even limited usage of a product that takes customers away from its conventional long-distance service. Mount an Internet long-distance effort, have it catch on to the point where people decide it's worthless, and kill off the category. The net effect? Fewer long-distance customers lost to Internet-voice companies. Two years from now, telephone users, paraphrasing Yogi Berra, will be saying, "Voice on the Internet? Nobody goes there anymore, because it's too crowded." ==THE BIG LIE the issues which the article addresses show a lack of understanding in IP/Telephony..the latency issues//constraints are being handled by both the increase in bandwidth..not necessarily this issue and by compression and use of UDP packeting as well as developements by Lucent/Tekelec,Cisco in the new Switches SS7 to name one which address the clogging issue...many more developements are coming in this area such as caching, hierarchies..etc... the players are on top of the issue. for some good reading i suggest you read the VOIP thread, there is some excellent commentary on these and many "other" issues which some will try and cast over the VOIP Tech... Another good place for reading yup on VOIP is www.pulver.com rocketeer1