OT - A long VoIP post. Some of it could even be considered relevant to ATHM...
Byron, the introduction of an independent voice over IP, or VoIP, client for ATHM
subscribers would be an interesting thing to watch unfold over time. Just as it will be on
the growing number of xDSL-supported clients in the near future. Each of these
modes are now extensible to regular analog phones, with the right selection of options,
as you very likely already know.
We've discussed the Internet protocol version of a "virtual end office" and "virtual
tandem office" many times in the past on the Last Mile and VoIP threads. What
virtualization amounts to is the elevation of the telephony service foundation from
a Layer 1 dependency on wires at the telco wiring interface, to Layer- 2 and -3
logical levels in processors. Layer 2 being the logical link layer, and Layer 3 being
the routing, or network, layer.
To add some clarity to this, it means the substitution of physical wiring to the telco
block on the side of the house, with a logical connection inside one's processing device.
One still needs an access provider, but with always on services, you are connected to
an ISP directly, instead of connecting through an end office dial operation switch.
Better yet, newer methods which are now available actually hide all of the ugliness
stated above, and appear like the genuine article, eliminating the fuss. These virtual
capabilities for telephony are what we are all already using right now for machine level
dialog (www, email, ftp, video).
They will be dependent on internetworking protocols now being deployed by upstarts,
at first, such as the ITSPs (Internet Telephony Service Providers) and the CLECs, and
then the cellular/pcs carriers, and finally the ILECs, themselves. Fortunately, the ILECs' participation in VoIP at the IP level is not considered a requirement in order for others to experience the benefits of a head start.
These services will initially amount to nothing short of major disruptions for many of
today's traditional carriers. It's actually resulting in the traditionals having to modify their
own plans, some of them drastically, and changing their spending habits, as well. But in
their attempt to preserve their dominance, they will wield their weight at the standards
committee levels, in order for them to retain their dominant status, over time. Here's how that works.
What the incumbents will do is introduce enough structural emulation of the legacy
model directly into the new model. Many of the rules of the trade that are used to their
advantage today through regulated revenue justifications will be preserved, and the old
regs will thereby be ushered forward, along with the new technology. In other words,
to the extent possible, they will work to preserve the old model through its emulation
with new software. Hardware elements will take on a new form in the way of coded objects, in other words, and it's a matter of tracing the dotted lines from that point out. This is what they will do with VoIP. And if you owned BEL or any other ILEC, you wouldn't have it any other way.
----
There is another school of thought at play here, called Internet Telephony - which
is fundamentally different in approach to that of VoIP. We'll talk about that some other
time. Suffice it to say that Internet Telephony is a pure Internet protocol-driven
technology, where VoIP is almost entirely based on emulating the intelligence that now
resides in the PSTN. Right now, however, it appears that VoIP is winning out in the
standards bodies, not suprpringly, so we'll focus on that one for the time being.
----
Getting back to the emulation of the old, and transforming it into the new, this is
something that is happening, as smart IP gateways and control devices are gaining
ground, and the dumbed down methods are taking a second seat, even in the
IETF, that hallowed bastion that is hell bent on perpetuating stupidity.
It's happening now in ways that are as plain as day. And guess what? Those new
IP only carriers that are all the rave right now? Alas, they are at the root of
smartness in future voice networks, for even they have come to learn where the
milk exits the cow.
---
Comparing, the quality of voip is without a doubt higher now than just a year ago.
It would be even higher for ATHM and other cablemodem subs, and those growing
numbers of dsl users.. given the increased amounts of bandwidth available to them
than that enjoyed by the dialers.
On ATHM's intranet, there is the added bonus associated with peer to peer calling
(ATHM sub to ATHM sub) due to the nature of their sharing the same backbone
profile, resulting in many fewer hops. How will independent voip election be met the
policy doctors at both ATHM and RR? After all, Cable Labs has its own plans for
packetized voice over cable systems, called the PacketCable standard. Will these
conflict with one another, using resources that were never intended for truly "open"
internetworking features? Don't forget, ATHM is actually a large intranet, with
internal rules and policies... I'll revisit this one at some later time when I know more
about it. In the meantime, if someone can add to this, it would be appreciated.
----
IDTC and other voip vendors don't need ATHM's or any other SP's endorsement
to see this happen, as I'm sure you're well aware. That's the scary part for the
service providers. The client can do their own thing, and not be dependent on their
primary access provider for voice services, going forward. Just like the primary access
provider can't tell them which ISP to choose... just like the access provider... wait a
minute! Can the access provider tell the subscriber which ISP to choose? [smiles]
---
The vendors will need simply to market their wares to end users for the generic
versions of their software products, in order for them to work. The reason behind the
threat to the carriers is, of course, that if the user mounts the client software on their
desktop, or on their wall phone, as it were, then T and the other local (and long
distance) carriers forfeit revenues big time. They are out, almost entirely, all of their
still-very- artificially-priced voice revenues, in other words.
Wasn't this at the root, the idea, behind the previous designs we spoke of, in the first
place? Escaping access charges and drastically reducing long distance and
international, especially, toll costs and settlement charges?
----
Hey, voip is not all that feature rich and dependable, as is Mom's primary line, at least
not at first. But neither is it intended for the cable telephony phone lines to be classified
as extremely dependable, either.
They are instead, and by design, being defined as "second[ary] lines with primary line
features." This is some cute crafting of word meanings here, stemming from the
distinctions between what is and what is not a lifeline grade service. In other words,
cable telephony lines will not at this time be classified as lifeline services. And the
reason for this is the central office battery issue, wherein normal POTS lines have
constant current applied, and cable lines do not. Which relegates the cable telephony
service, in most cases, vulnerable to extended power outages.
At least, not very many of the initial cable telephony lines which are going in today can
be called primaries (even if some may elect to call them that).
----
So, in a way it will be a race to see whose price-benefit quotient comes out on top,
first? Regular switched over cable, with admittedly lower than lifeline standing, but
higher sounding quality at the present time? Or the VoIP variant, which never claimed
to be anything but viable and almost free, since its inception, but which at the same time
is also improving in quality, as time goes by. And which, by the way, will offer higher
sounding quality in the near future, aided by DSP techs, resulting in higher fidelity
sound, and even stereo, for those who choose.
T and the other MSOs have elected to deploy the more reliable alternative going in to
this thing, since perception is everything in this game, and they will continue to cater to
those perceptions. And, to be sure, quality will be better at first using the switched
mode, as well.
But when choosing the second line, will users really care all that much about the
benefits of switched which I have mentioned above, and thereby elect on the side of a
switched line, if the alternative is something that is slightly inferior, sounding wise, but
almost entirely free... and one that is getting better sounding all the time?
---
From a consumer cost perspective, VoIP will be all about circumventing the carriers'
toll gates, with the exception of using their distant end switches to complete calls to
regular analog telephone sets. The average family could stand to save upwards of
1,000 per annum in this fashion, or more if kids are away at school, etc.
Does VoIP result in a form of exploitation of the incumbents' switching and
transmission facilities? After all, this voip thing, as it's structured today, uses the
ILECs' facilities for free. And that includes their data bases, their SS7 intelligence,
sometimes their advanced AIN platforms, etc. Is this an all around equitable
proposition?
Granted, the answer to this is NO.
But it's the ruling that has come out of Washington thus far, to defer treating the ITSPs
as long distance carriers, continuing to allow them to be classified as information
service providers, or enhanced providers, or whatever it is that an FCC agency head
could think of when called upon to comment on the subject. Exemptions still apply,
and that's the bottom line right now. And if that the way this game is going to be
played, then why not adapt to it as such.
And it will remain this way until the FCC finds a way to avoid being blinded by the
oncoming headlights. Right now, they are holding up their hands to shield their eyes
from the blistering light and heat that is out in front of them, not knowing which way to
turn first. Thus, they are frozen in place. Besides, the capital recovery time using the
voip model is way less than that of switched, not surprisingly. If the carriers don't
figure this out early and adapt their implementation plans accordingly, then they will
deserve to be exploited for their blindness and their unwillingness to change.
The time for users to begin their uptake of voip is coming soon, real soon. It's
happening already, on a par, I'd say, of where the early web adopter was in '94.
And I'm not talking about the kind of voip that requires a head set, a candle mike
and a toggle switch. I'm referring to the one that ties into the normal existing phone
wiring in the home as a standard option, with an always growing number of options
for us humans to interface to.
T had better hurry up getting their intended voice services to market, and attaching
some "sticky" features to them, lest they lose out to this latest form of bypass. If that
happens, it will relegate all we've been listening to for the past six months to nothing
more than noise on the line.
Regards, Frank Coluccio
ps - the following interview concerns AT&T's plans for the last mile:
Message 9470315 |
