Courtesy of Frank Coluccio, A long VoIP post. 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.
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.
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. 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.
Thereason 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 |
