""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I always thought that the PSTN was based off of that fact that not all > phones would be calling at once, and if they did, then some would get > through while others wouldn't.
CL: yes. true. however, decades ago the Bell folks knew and practiced the optimum manner in which to provision such that you or I or any other individual would experience dial tone almost all of the time. We know this through the Ehrlang calcualtions. >Then to ensure that important calls got > through during these periods, there was the priority network that gov't > officials have with their PINS, etc. (Can't remember the name, but there's > also an IETF working group working on the same thing.) CL good idea. having been through an earthquake or two, I'm quite familiar with fast busy's during emergencies. nice to know there is a means for the right people to be able to get through. > > I don't think that the Converged Network theory is reinventing the wheel and > is a dead end. I think the opposite is true. The TDM/PSTN world is dead > (or dying) and that most calls are circuit-switched across ATM now. CL: different issue. the Bell network grew and matured because of regulation that guaranteed return on capital. therefore it was in Bell's interest to invest in capital - switches, lines, CO's. Since deregulation in 1984 it can be argued that the appropriate investment has not been made in "the network" - all that has happened is that the CLECs have cherry picked the most concentrated and profitable areas while underinvesting in not so profitable areas. I sometimes sign my messages TANSTAAFL - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Right now, for all intents and purposes, the internet is "free". What happens when people have to start paying for their proportional share of services? Assuming the internet becomes the replacement for the telco netowrk? CL: I'm not saying that there is room for improvement. There is no reason that a PBX has to be larger than a couple of IBM mainframes. But I gotta ask - is it really a good idea to make your PC into a telephone into a television? > Now if > someone could just solve the last mile.... > CL: oh boy. video on demand. OC192 to the television set. I can hardly wait. CL: much as I despise the idea, I go along with the school of thought that wireless is the future, not voice and data converged. It's another one of those "trekkie tech" things, but telcos continue to lose 10's of thousands of lines per year to wireless, and most people just want to yak on the phone, no matter where they are. Which is one more reason to telecommute. > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > ""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in > message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I understand the technology and stand by whoever said what IP > > telephony/VoIP > > > isn't a bandwidth hungry app. It isn't. G.729, which can use as little > > as > > > 8k with proper compresion, has nearly the same MOS score as G.711, which > > is > > > toll quality. Even though it's not officially "toll quality" I consider > > it > > > toll quality, as I can't tell the difference, and most people couldn't > > > either. Even if using G.711, I can still use compression and VAD to get > > > down to 25K or so, which isn't bandwidth hungry in my book either. > > > > > > I think the apps that will be on a converged network in the future will > be > > > bandwidth hungry, such as video. Voice isn't. > > > > > > > CL: I don't think the issue is the bandwidth taken by one compressed call. > > The issue is poisson 99. I think that's how the telco guys call it. What > > happens when a significant number of calls "must" go through - say during > an > > emergency? > > > > CL: current telco networks are engineered such that you get dial tone > 99.5% > > of the time you go off hook, day or night, busy hour or not. the VoIP > > netowork must not only operate at that kind of reliability, but must > > tramsmit data simultaneously. > > > > CL: This rush to converged networks means not only reinventing what the > > telcos have already done, but building out a whole new infrastructure as > > well. There is at least one school of thought that calls this a dead end. > > > > CL: one of the bad things that has come out of Microsoft is the attitude > > that Mainframe computers are just PC's with a little bit more horsepower > and > > that the internet is just a bigger version of the Microsoft campus > network, > > with a few more hubs involved. I see one of the bad things about Cisco's > > vision of converged networks is the attitude that the Telephone Network is > > nothing more than just the Cisco campus telephone network with a few more > > phones attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Joe A > > > > To: 'Nathan Chessin'; 'Albert Lu'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 10/14/02 11:52 AM > > > > Subject: RE: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > Maybe I should say IP Telephony, not VoIP. How many uncompressed, > > > > toll-quality calls can you push out simultaneously over a T1??? Have > > > > you done the math? 24? Maybe 23 on a good day. Sure, if you use > > > > compression you can squeeze in quite a bit more, but you can't deny > that > > > > IPT is bandwidth-hungry, with streaming MOH, voicemail audio streams, > > > > the calls themselves. Believe me, VoIP is absolutely a > bandwidth-hungry > > > > app. No one who understands the technology would deny that. > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Nathan Chessin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:56 AM > > > > To: 'Joe'; 'Albert Lu'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Since when is VoIP a "bandwidth-hungry app" > > > > > > > > Nate > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:42 PM > > > > > To: 'Albert Lu'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Technology isn't necessarily heading in that direction - Cisco is > > > > > driving it there. Bottom line is this: Cisco is traditionally a > > > > > router and switch manufacturer, and no one buys routers and switches > > > > > these days, at least not enough to provide continued growth for > Cisco. > > > > > Company infrastructures are already built, have been for > > > > > years, and are > > > > > running for the most part nowhere near capacity. These technology > > > > > applications, besides generating hardware sales directly, will also > > > > > increase bandwidth consumption, thereby causing indirect > > > > > hardware sales > > > > > when customers upgrade their routers and switches to support the new > > > > > bandwidth-hungry apps like VoIP. If Cisco can drive the customers' > > > > > purchases in that direction, they win. > > > > > > > > > > My two cents. > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > > > > > Behalf Of > > > > > Albert Lu > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:16 AM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: OT: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Group, > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone checked out the Cisco ExecNet, which is basically > thoughts > > > > > about where technology is heading in the future from the VPs at > Cisco. > > > > > > > > > > http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/execnet/ > > > > > > > > > > >From what they are saying (specifically Mike Volpi), the > > > > > direction for > > > > > technology is heading towards: CDN, Security, Wireless, IP > Telephony, > > > > > VPN. Reegineering business processes to best utilise these > > > > > technologies in order to improve productivity and reduce cost for > > > > > enterprises. > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any comments about this, and where money > > > > > will be spent > > > > > in the future for technologies? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Albert Lu > > > > > CCIE #8705 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55611&t=55573 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
