One more quick OT comment. The TV will become a computer and this will be a good thing. It's ridiculous that so many people spend hours in front of an absoultely dumb device that is only one-way and has a horrid user interface (a remote control!) That will change and it will be pretty exciting. You'll be able to click on spots on your computer (sorry TV) to go to Web sites to learn more, have multiple shows and applications open at once, be able to send e-mail while watching baseball. Instead of having a single button that just goes back to the last channel, you'll have a explorer like interface with back and forward and refresh buttons. Just hope that the greedy folks don't make it too commercial.
Regarding hotel "hot spot" networks, what a kludge! ;-) I just learned how some of them work from this interesting article in IPJ: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_5-3/ipj_5-3_visitor_networks.html _______________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com Steven A. Ridder wrote: > > I think wireless and converged data over high speed links wil > co-exist, not > compete for same space n market. I can't see high-speed > wireless out in the > "WAN" of a cellular network anywhere down the road. Without > that speed over > wireless, we are stuck with being able to DL e-mails and > web-pages at a > slow, but decent rate. The high speed stuff will happed over > wires for a > while, and although I don't see PC's being used as TV's, I do > forsee the PC > being the digital gateway/servwer of the high-speed home where > other devices > like a TIVO work off of the gateway and provide TV services to > the family > and a phone will be a phone, just getting it's information form > same gateway > and the phone will provide the phone services for a family. > > Our consulting side does see wireless devices with two bands - > 802.b/a/g for > use in hot spots and GSM/GRPS over the "WAN", and this is going > to be the > way of wireless for a while. While your at a hotspot, maybe a > hotel or > airport (or Starbuck now, which we helped developed for them) > you can get > high speeds and DL video, maybe play a java game with a buddy. > Then you > have to leave the area, and now you rely on GSM. You still have > connectivity, but in a limited fashion. I work for a company > that tests, > writes, and demos the latest devices from that carriers, and so > I get to > play with them as well, and I have seen a lot of innovative > devices, (right > now I get a T-Mobile Pocket PC Phone Edition as my cell phone) > and I love > them, but what I'm seeing is not the devleopment of bandwidth > over their > networks, but the 2.5G network development, and the > standardization of the > network with 1 common signal. > > -- > > 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 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=55637&t=55573 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
