The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > ""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.
Yes, but that's based on the assumption that not everyone will call at once. It won't work in an emergency. It didn't in 1989, for example. Now that we will be having an all-California World Series, we better be prepared for another message from the Earthquake Goddess!? ;-) Priscilla > > > >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=55635&t=55573 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
