AHhaha, re:
How is that different than having two lines bound together?
Let me count the ways...
Jay, re: your comment:
But I'm gathering from that discussion that we're still pretty far away from that.
For the sake of brevity, I'll attempt to answer both of you with one reply ;-)
True, the fancy appliance- and PC-based voice stuff, if it is going to be offered straight from T/TCI's menu of options, will be at least far enough into the future to be significant, at least for those of us who are impatiently anticipating those kinds of features.
This may be one of those areas that will greet some prospective users with some strange revelations and surprises. Especially for those of us who are anticipating the next level of voice and video to include significant enhancements to the experience.
Those will come, but they wont be the initial standard offerings right out of the gate, IMO. [They could be implemented at any time, however, on PCs, say, as individual users elect to do so. But it is not the intent of this post to discuss user initiatives on their PCs. This post addresses some of the parameters and the challenges that the next gen telco - in this case, T/TCI - must face, and overcome.]
One of the things that T must do, in addition to supplying adequate field powering for lifeline criteria, etc, if they are to be successful in supplanting the ILECs in the voice sector, is this:
They must devise methods of re-utilizing residential telephone cabling and wiring, as well as the telephone instruments themselves, in such a way as to ensure absolute transparency at the time of implementation, and beyond.
This means that there will be several modes of voice usage in the home over a cable modem connection:
(1) standard twisted pair premises distribution and the same-o same-o telephone extensions throughout the home (nothing changes here, in other words), and
(2) all other Internet-enabled forms of telephony. This mode has yet to be defined in its entirety, and never will.
Therefore, we are not talking about a simple, straightforward one-size-fits-all kind of voice feature here. Moreover, if I were to guess, I think that the priority will be to deliver the "nothing-fancy" Option 1 above first, with embellishments to follow (or implemented on an individual case basis by users independently, once their hooks are in place).
But for certain, in order to draw customers to the voice option, the MSO is going to have to guarantee to them that they will not have to go out and buy all new handsets and rewire the home for Ethernet. That'll come much later for most adopters.
Having said that, the solution is not straightforward, because the home STB or its adjunct unit will need to simulate many of the signaling conditions of the old copper loop. Ringing current, especially, will be needed to sound the ring.
Another differentiation will exist in the area of "web-tone" (always on) mode versus the legacy dial tone (per the present mode).
Explanation: Those who elect to continue to receive the legacy POTS variant of voice over the new cable-iphony STB infrastructure will see no difference. This will comprise the vast majority of new users, IMO. While those who take advantage of the "always on" attribute of IP networking will need to adapt in other yet-to-be-standardized ways.
We're all going to be in for a learning curve with the the latter option, because the IP address will follow you no matter where you go (i.e., your phone calls will always find you!). Learning how to administer this ubiquitous and omni-present shadow, in itself, is going to be a real trip.
I just thought that I would introduce these facts here, skimpy as they seem in this form (since I'm trying to keep it brief), and since we're discussing some relatively near term (next year) real possibilities, where T's intentions are concerned.
So, keep in mind that there are going to be many modes of voice, ranging from the oldest legacy POTS to the futuristic, where voice over cable-iphony is concerned. And where the former POTS variant is concerned, I don't see any reason why T/TCI or whomever can't realize at least the same revenues as those being garnered by the ILECs, minus an incentive (or savings pass-along) of 5%-to-10%, perhaps.
Why give away more, when you've already bagged the sub? This revenue stream, especially the one derived from the subscriber who elects the POTS variant, will last for quite a long time, with a gradually reducing cost to the carrier, and a correspondingly gradual reduction in charges to the subscriber.
That's the way it goes. Comments and corrections welcome.
Best Regards, Frank Coluccio |
